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

Re: generalized RDF comment from David Booth

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 21:38:28 -0500
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <7C244D54-4843-4A1A-9456-FFFBCDB591B9@ihmc.us>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>

On Oct 2, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:

> 
> 
> Le 02/10/2013 16:44, Patrick J. Hayes a écrit :
>> I like this wording with a slight modification, more stylistic than contentful to the second paragraph. "Incidentally" is hardly correct and strikes an odd note in a technical document.
>> Generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets differ from normative RDF triples, graphs, and datasets only by allowing IRIs, blank
>> nodes and literals to appear anywhere as subject, predicate, object or graph name.
> 
> Yes, looks good.
> 
> 
>> BUT is it correct to allow literals as graph names? This is not required by any generalization I know.
> 
> I have use cases for it, but even if it was not the case, it should be allowed, if only to avoid having in the future "generalized generalized RDF datasets" where it would be allowed.

Fair enough. Actually on further thought I can think of plausible use cases also. 

Pat

> 
> 
> 
> AZ
> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> 
>> Antoine Zimmermann , 10/2/2013 1:10 AM:
>> Le 02/10/2013 05:17, Peter Patel-Schneider a écrit :
>>> I would hope that David would be satisfied with a change like:
>>> 
>>> A generalized RDF triple is an RDF triple except that subjects,
>> 
>> David is not pleased by "A generalized RDF graph is an RDF graph", I
>> don't think he would prefer this much.
>> 
>> To be honest, I am a bit annoyed by this phrasing too.
>> 
>> Why not simply redefined generalized RDF graphs not mentioning RDF graphs:
>> 
>> """
>> A generalized RDF triple is a triple having a subject, a predicate and
>> object that each can be an IRI, a blank node or a literal. A generalized
>> RDF graph is a set of generalized RDF triples. A generalized RDF dataset
>> comprises a distinguished generalized RDF graphs and zero or more pairs
>> associating an IRI, a blank node or a literal to a generalized RDF graph.
>> 
>> Incidentally, generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets only differ
>> from normative RDF triples, graphs, and datasets by allowing IRIs, blank
>> nodes and literals to appear anywhere as subject, predicate, object or
>> graph name.
>> """
>> 
>> 
>> AZ
>> 
>>> predicates, and objects are all allowed to be IRIs, blank nodes, or
>>> literals. A generalized RDF graph is an RDF graph except that the
>>> triples in it are generalized RDF triples. A generalized RDF dataset is
>>> an RDF dataset except that the graphs in it are generalized RDF graphs
>>> and the graph labels are IRIs, blank nodes, or literals.
>>> 
>>> This is by no means deathless prose, but any attempt to add literary
>>> muscle ("can be", "its", ...) ends up being harder to grok.
>>> 
>>> I oppose moving this section from Concepts to Semantics.
>>> 
>>> peter
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 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/
>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 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/
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 02:38:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 3 October 2013 02:38:57 UTC