Re: comments on the current clutch of working drafts

[freed from spam trap -rrs]

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:21:44 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <a05100307b9106928241d@[65.217.30.61]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: pat hayes <phayes@mail.coginst.uwf.edu>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>....
>
>Comments on the Model Theory:
>
>The model theory makes it very clear that RDF reification is not related in
>any way to reificiation.  This is good, but does raise the issue of why
>reification has been retained.
>
>The model theory, along with the recent decision allowing multiple rdf:_<n>
>statements in containers for a particular <n>, makes it very clear that
>rdf:Seq is not related to sequences, rdf:bag is not related to bags, and
>rdf:Alt is not related to alternatives.  This is again good, but does raise
>the issue of why these have been retained.

All true, all true. The reason for retention in all these cases was 
the existence of legacy code which uses one or more of these 
constructs. Under these circumstances, the WG tends to feel that it 
isn't appropriate to simply remove them from the language (rendering 
such code noncompliant) but that the spec should make it clear what 
the limitations are on any intended meanings. I agree that this 
leaves the MT with very little to say constructively about the 
intended meanings; but the idea is that silence can at times be 
golden.

>
>The theory of literals in the model theory is very weak.  This means that
>there is no relationship whatsoever between literals the differ only on
>their language (or on the presence of a language).
>

The treatment of literals may be changed before the final version of 
the MT is produced. The correct role of the lang attribute is 
(surprisingly) weak even in XML.

Pat
--

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 08:26:52 UTC