W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2013

Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:49:13 -0400
Message-ID: <52674739.4050803@dbooth.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>


On 10/22/2013 08:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> David, a quick response to correct a misapprehension. See inline
> below.
>
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:05 AM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> On 10/21/2013 06:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> Is this request supposed to be for me, or for the sender of the
>>> response?  I initially sent back a private response on this, but
>>> in the interests of time, I will answer with my personal
>>> feelings.
>>
>> Yes, but apparently you missed my followup, as I didn't receive a
>> response to that.  My followup was: [[ For concepts that are *used*
>> then I would agree, but that concept is *not* used in the RDF
>> Concepts spec.  The RDF Semantics spec uses other far more
>> important concepts too, such as "denotes", but surely you would not
>> advocate moving those definitions to the RDF Concepts document? ]]
>>
>>>
>>> The introduction of generalized RDF is in Concepts because
>>> Concepts is where RDF concepts are to be introduced.
>>> Generalized RDF was called out as a worthy RDF concept because
>>> JSON-LD needed something to point to for its generalization of
>>> RDF.
>>
>> And my followup said: [[ That's an interesting catch-22, because
>> the JSON-LD *justification* for using the notion of generalized RDF
>> was that it is defined in the RDF specs, so we seem to have a
>> circular justification going on here.
>
> No, the reason for JSON-LD using a generalization of RDF syntax is
> quite external to the RDF specs, and has its roots in the JSON
> community itself. So this is not a catch-22, as you put it, but a
> small gesture of conciliation between RDF and JSON-LD, which are like
> two musicians playing the same tune but each insisting that their
> version was written by a different composer.

I understand that the *motivation* for using generalized RDF had nothing 
to do with the existence of the definition in the RDF specs.  But i 
distinctly remember the existence of the definition in the RDF specs as 
being used as a justification for going ahead with the 
blank-nodes-as-predicates feature in JSON-LD, rather than finding 
another solution in spite of the motivation.  I don't know how easily i 
could find the messages or phone log to prove that, but i was quite 
heavily involved in those discussions at that time and i distinctly 
remember that point standing out in my mind at the time.

David

>
> Pat Hayes
>
>>
>> In what sense do you view the Concepts document as being a better
>> reference than the Semantics document?  Are you suggesting that the
>> definition *should* have more prominence than it would get in the
>> Semantics doc?  The problem with giving it more prominence is that
>> people start to misconstrue it as being a W3C standard on par with
>> standard RDF.  But generalized RDF has not gone through at all the
>> same level of rigor as standardized RDF -- no test cases, no
>> interoperable implementations, etc. -- and was not intended by the
>> W3C to be promoted as a W3C standard.  The fact that JSON-LD
>> references that definition is a bug, not a feature, IMO. ]]
>>
>> Bottom line: I'm not at all convinced by the rationale that I've
>> heard so far, that the Concepts document is a better place for this
>> definition than the Semantics document.  Is there more rationale
>> that I've missed?  Or do you disagree with my points above?  If so,
>> what and why?
>>
>> David
>>
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/16/2013 10:10 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> The wording of this definition looks good to me, but why are
>>>> you opposed to moving it to the RDF Semantics document?
>>>> AFAICT, the term is not used in the RDF Concepts document, but
>>>> it *is* used in the RDF Semantcs document. Also, moving it to
>>>> RDF Semantics would give it less visibility, which (to my mind)
>>>> would be appropriate given that standard RDF is what the W3C is
>>>> intending to promote, rather than generalized RDF.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: RDF Concepts -
>>>> Definition of "Generalized RDF" Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013
>>>> 13:11:52 +0000 Resent-From: public-rdf-comments@w3.org Date:
>>>> Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:11:18 -0400 From: David Wood
>>>> <david@3roundstones.com> To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> CC:
>>>> RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>>
>>>> This is an official response from the RDF Working Group
>>>> regarding your comment at [1] on the definition of "Generalized
>>>> RDF".  Your comment is being tracked at our ISSUE-147 [2].
>>>>
>>>> The WG discussed your concerns at our 2 Oct telecon [3] and via
>>>> email [4]. Those discussions resulted in a decision to leave
>>>> the definition of "generalized RDF" in RDF 1.1 Concepts, but to
>>>> change the definition to the following: [[ 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. ]]
>>>>
>>>> My action to make the editorial changes was tracked at [5].
>>>>
>>>> The updated section 7 is available in the current editors'
>>>> draft [6].
>>>>
>>>> Please advise the working group whether this change is
>>>> acceptable to you by responding to this message.  Thank you for
>>>> your participation.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0006.html
>>>>
>>>>
[2] ISSUE-147: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147
>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09#line0228
>>>> [4]
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0030.html
>>>>
>>>>
[5] ACTION-309: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/309
>>>> [6]
>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-generalized-rdf
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wednesday, 23 October 2013 03:49:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:26 UTC