W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Proposal for Deferrment and Closure (was Re: Reopening tidy/untidy decision)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 10:00:57 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020930094711.02c82ea8@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Hi Patrick,

Thank you for this proposal.

Whatever decision we take, tidy, untidy or "we ain't sayin", we will need 
to write up a rationale for why that is the best decision in the 
circumstances.  I think we agreed Friday that we would write up the 
rationale and then make a decision.  I would like to continue with that 
plan.  In saying that, I don't consider this to be an open ended 
process.  We do need to get done, and soon.

I will be proposing a detailed process in the next couple of days.  What I 
currently have in mind is to discuss this issue at the next two 
teleconferences and then have a vote.

I think that gives us one more chance to review the arguments and come to 
greater consensus.  It also gives us one more chance to find a new way of 
looking at the problem which leads to a new proposal(I know there is one 
out there) that might attract stronger consensus.

So I urge the WG not to think just in terms of tidy versus untidy, but in 
terms of what it is we really need and whether there might be a third 
way.  I note Pat has trying.

With regard to your proposal, my immediate concern is the effect on 
interoperability.  To help us make a decision, can you do an analysis for 
us on the effect this proposal would have on interoperability.

Brian


At 10:58 30/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:



>I would like for consideration of the following proposal
>to be added to the aggenda for the October 4 telecon,
>preferably including a vote for or against its adoption.
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ext Eric Miller" <em@w3.org>
>To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Sent: 26 September, 2002 21:55
>Subject: Reopening tidy/untidy decision
>
>
>
> > Achieving concensus is a difficult task at best, and this particular
> > issue of tidy/untidy literals has unfortunately plagued us more than any
> > would have liked.
> >
> > We need to finish the stablization of the core RDF
> > specifications as soon as possible.
> >
> > Our deadline has passed. Please look again at this decision and give
> > careful consideration to the impact on the WG schedule.
> >
> > --
> > eric miller                              http://www.w3.org/people/em/
> > semantic web activity lead               http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
> > w3c world wide web consortium            http://www.w3.org/
>
>
>
>It does not appear that the present RDF Core WG will achieve any
>reasonably concensus on this issue, and it is unlikely to be
>productive to extend a debate which has remained deadlocked for
>over a year without significant new input into the process, which
>is unlikely to come, apart from further implementational experience.
>
>I therefore propose to the RDF Core WG that the issue of string versus
>value based interpretation of inlined literals be deferred to a future
>working group, and that the WG complete all its specifications as
>expediently as possible reflecting the decisions made to date,
>and complete its charter.
>
>The RDF MT should assign no interpretation whatsoever to inlined literals,
>and should license no entailments involving triples containing inlined
>literals.
>
>Inlined literals remain "semantic wildcards" which are fully ambiguous
>to the RDF MT and have no explicit nor consistent meaning across
>applications, unless such a consistent intepretation is agreed to
>by applications separately from and in addition to the RDF MT. The
>RDF Core WG does not suggest any particular mechanism(s) for such
>extra-MT agreements.
>
>The representation of inline literals in the abstract graph syntax
>remains as decided, with each occurrence of an inlined literal represented
>by a distinct node in the graph, without any special prefixation or other
>modification of the node label relating to its unique occurrence.
>
>Thus, the following entailment would NOT hold, insofar as the RDF MT
>is concerned:
>
>IF
>    ?s ?p "LLL" .
>THEN
>    ?s ?p _:x .
>
>and therefore NEITHER of the following datatyping entailments would hold:
>
>IF
>    ?s ?p "LLL" .
>    ?s ?q "LLL" .
>THEN
>    ?s ?p _:x .
>    ?s ?q _:x .
>
>IF
>    ?s ?p "LLL" .
>    ?s ?q "LLL" .
>    ?p rdfs:range ?d .
>    ?q rdfs:range ?d .
>    ?d rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>THEN
>    ?s ?p _:x .
>    ?s ?q _:x .
>
>The interpretation of inlined literals, and the relations between inlined
>literals and rdfs:range assertions or any other assertions in the graph
>remains undefined by the RDF MT and up to each individual application to
>decide if and what interpretations might be assigned to inlined literals.
>
>The following graph does not constitute a type clash, as no interpretation
>is provided for the inline literal by the RDF MT itself:
>
>    ?s ?p "LLL" .
>    ?p rdfs:range ?d .
>    ?d rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>
>Individual applications, however, are free to interpret the above
>range assertion as affecting the interpretation of the inlined
>literal in some manner, if they so choose. Or they are free to ignore
>the presence of the range assertion as having no affect whatsoever on
>the intepretation of the inlined literal. The RDF MT does not support,
>require, presume, suggest, or prefer either choice.
>
>Member organizations are encouraged to continue research and evaluation
>of systems based on various interpretations, as well as to publish
>proposed or preferred solutions and experience as W3C Notes or by other
>means, and it is hoped that further experience gained from such work will
>prove to be valueable input to future working groups addressing this issue.
>
>Patrick
>
>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>
>
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 05:03:55 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:05 EDT