Re: comments / review of Concepts

On 06/19/2013 09:25 AM, David Wood wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 01:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I read Concept and Semantics on a plane this evening.
>>
>> Here are my comments on Concepts.   Consider this a pre-review.
> Thanks for this review.  Is another review forthcoming?  Please advise.

Consider that as a full review.

>
>
>> peter
>>
>>
>> Comments on  RDF 1.1 Concepts version of 21 May 2013
>>
>> Looks very good, with only one significant issue (#1, just below)
>>
>> 1/ Social meaning is rearing its ugly head here
>>
>> Instead use in 1.3
>> - IRIs have global scope:  Two different appearances of an IRI denote the
>>   same resource
>> - By social convention, ... gets to say what the intended (or usual)
>>   referent of an IRI is.  Applications and users need not abide by this
>>   intended denotation, but there may be a loss of interoperability with
>>   other applications and users if they do so.
> I believe you meant "if they do not do so", meaning if they do not abide by the intended denotation.
>
Yes.
>> - ... For example, ... intended referents ...
>> Instead use in 1.5
>> - ... should never change its intended referent.
>
> Changes made in the current editors' draft.  I looked at adding a definition for "intended referent" but decided it was unnecessary.
>
>
>> Consider if I say that the meaning of pfps:foo is the integer 2 and
>> the meaning of pfps:bar is the decimal number 2.0.  These are my IRIs so I
>> get to do this. Does this mean that any RDF processor that performs (even)
>> simple entailment must produce
>> 	ex:foo ex:bar pfps:foo .
>> entails
>> 	ex:foo ex:bar pfps:bar .
>
> Not to me, no.  Does it to you??

Of course not, but I think that we have to be careful to not imply this in any 
way shape or form.

The current wording here is acceptable.
>
>
>> 2/ Union is not always conjunction
>>
>> 1.7 ... the union of two RDF graphs that do not share blank nodes is their
>> conjunction.  If two RDF graphs share blank nodes, then conjoining them may
>> require merging [defined in Semantics].
>>
>> Alternatively, define merge here.
>>
>> Alternatively, remove the last sentence of the fragment above.
>
> Please confirm that the changes I made to 1.7 are acceptable to you.

I think that some minor changes should be made to go along with the new 
Semantics stance on union and merge:

   If two or more RDF graphs share blank nodes, then unioning [point to 
Semantics] them preserves the shared identity of the blank nodes.  If this is 
not desired, the two graphs can be merged [...], which effectively destroys 
this shared identity.

This is purposefully vague.

>
>> 3/ Explicitly say which sections are normative ??
>>
>> I believe this is 2, 3, 4 (except 4.2), and 5
>
> I do not believe this to be necessary.  Informative sections are so marked and everything else is considered normative.  I do see that (e.g.) the 2004 OWL semantics explicitly marked normative sections as such, but personally think it is overkill.  However, I won't fight anyone over it if you think it is useful.

I just thought that in the current regime things were supposed to be 
explicitly spelled out this way.  If not, then no problem.


[...]

> Thanks again. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood 

I'm happy with the current state of the document, modulo blank nodes as graph 
names.

peter

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2013 14:26:35 UTC