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

comments / review of Concepts

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 22:38:50 -0700
Message-Id: <796DB9DE-DBC9-4454-837B-36951CA1840E@gmail.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I read Concept and Semantics on a plane this evening.

Here are my comments on Concepts.   Consider this a pre-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.
- ... For example, ... intended referents ...
Instead use in 1.5
- ... should never change its intended referent.

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 .

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.

3/ Explicitly say which sections are normative ??

I believe this is 2, 3, 4 (except 4.2), and 5

4/ The (DG1,NG1) notation is not defined

4.1 The RDF dataset D1 with default graph DG1 and named graphs NG1
and the RDF dataset D2 with default graph DG2 and named graphs NG2 are ...

5/ Notes on xsd:string and binary data

5.1 Note that xsd:string is not all unicode character strings
5.1 Note that xsd:hexBinary and xsd:base64Binary are the only safe datatypes
for transferring binary information.

6/ Update reference to Semantics

- currently it is to the 2004 version
- does it have to be normative, even if there is a pointer to merging?

Editorial changes:
1 - remove Issue about in-progress
1.2 - The assertion of -> Asserting
1.7 - remove Issue about note
3.3 Literals are used for values such as strings, numbers, and dates.   The
literal value corresponding to a literal is defined [later].
3.3 Two literals can have the same [value]
A - remove Issue about note
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2013 05:39:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 22 May 2013 05:39:23 UTC