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

Re: LC drafts of Concepts and Semantics [was: Moving Concepts to LC]

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 13:27:44 -0500
Cc: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org WG" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EAFAD145-ADEC-4F12-BFC6-8A5FB3DD6D7E@ihmc.us>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

Getting down to some fine details, I request a few editorial changes to Concepts to be made before LC.


An RDF vocabulary is a collection of IRIs with clearly established referents intended for use in RDF graphs. 
/// delete " with clearly established referents" . This is technically wrong and does not add anything to the notion in any case. 


We need to be more careful about the use of the word "merge" here. 

As RDF graphs are sets of triples, they can be merged easily, ...
/// they can be combined easily,....

There is a real problem with this sentence:

"It is common to have the default graph contain triples that involve the graph names of the other graphs in the dataset."

It might be common, but if those names are being understood to refer to the named graphs, then this is in direct violation of the semantics specification. (And if they are not, what is the point of doing this?) As this sentence reads like an endorsement of this practice, we should either delete it or add a rider sentence pointing out that this usage violates the RDF1.1 specifications. 

I would suggest deleting this entire paragraph.


Delete the sentence "Some entailment regimes are defined with respect to a datatype map."

OK, thats all Ive noticed so far, apart from the changes to 5.4 already noted in the WG resolution. (Though see Tom Baker's recent email about this.) 


PS. There is now quite a lot of stuff in semantics 'notation and termionology' all about merging versus unions, lean graphs, instances etc, and other graph machinery. Should this be all put into Concepts? I have no axe to grind either way, but would like us to think about the idea. 

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Sunday, 5 May 2013 18:28:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:13 UTC