W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2013

RDF 1.1 Semantics

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:29:32 +0100
Message-ID: <5140550C.2050600@emse.fr>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Pat, Peter,


Before sending the details of my review, these are necessary changes 
that must be done before publication as FPWD:

  1. remove all the statements about scope in section "Notation and 
terminology" and
  2. revert to the semantics of blank node from RDF Semantics 2004, that is,
"""
If E is an RDF graph then I(E) = true if [I+A](E) = true for some 
mapping A from the set of blank nodes in E to IR, otherwise I(E)= false.
"""

or possibly:

"""
If E is an RDF graph then I(E) = true if [I+A](E) = true for some 
mapping A from the set of blank nodes to IR, otherwise I(E)= false.
"""

If these changes are not made, I will object to the publication of RDF 
1.1 Semantics as a FPWD. This is not negotiable.

Of course, this does not mean that I will block any further changes to 
these sections, nor that there cannot be eventually a discussion on 
scope in Semantics.

I will provide a detailed review with rationale for this, but for the 
moment, it suffices to say that RDF 1.1 Semantics does not provide a 
semantics for what's defined in Concepts. Rather, it specifies a 
semantics for its own conception of what RDF should be.


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 10:30:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:54 GMT