W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Issues timbl-01 bagid needed

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:14:23 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030311151055.02e87750@localhost>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Tim,

The following comment has been recorded

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#timbl-01

The RDFCore WG will consider this and respond in due course.

Brian

At 20:50 03/03/2003 -0500, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>(with apologies, a message delayed for a few days, while my laptop was 
>repaired)
>
>
>
>On Friday, Feb 14, 2003, at 08:27 US/Eastern, Brian McBride wrote:
>
>>I'm following up on this from a process perspective.  In my initial 
>>response I forgot to ask whether that response resolved your comment.
>>
>>We've had some offlist discussion from which I think I've learnt that I 
>>might reinterpret your question as:
>>
>>   Should the syntax that triggers generatation of reified statements, 
>> i.e. rdf:bagID and some instances of rdf:ID be removed from the specification.
>>
>>Would that be a fair characterization?
>
>Yes
>
>>My quick response to this question is that the WG was chartered to 
>>clarify M&S.  It wasn't chartered to remove bits of the syntax (though it 
>>has done so in other instance where clarification was difficult).
>
>That's fair.
>
>>The WG might have been more willing to consider this question if it had 
>>been brought up earlier, but we are now in last call so it is more 
>>difficult to make such changes.
>
>I must indeed apologize for not bringing this up earlier.  The question of the
>semantics of these triples only arose practically for me in relation to a 
>need for reification
>in some very recent and incomplete work on ontologies for expressing
>proof.
>
>
>
>>As I noted earlier, there are now several implementations of the features 
>>you suggest be removed.
>
>
>If reification has been used in existing applications that will I am sure
>shed light on the semantics of the triples.
>
>A reasonable path then, in keeping with the charter, would seem to be
>  to clarify the semantics of the generated triples (inferences which may
>be made from them, etc) , and leave in those things which are clear in the 
>spec.
>One could perhaps look at a future plan for profiles of RDF which re-asses
>what is included in the very core layer.
>
>
>>I doubt you will find this response satisfies you, but my question to you 
>>is whether you are persuaded to withdraw the comment or whether you would 
>>like this comment recorded and considered by the WG.
>
>
>It really depends on whether the group feels that the semantics can be 
>clarified.
>
>You continue in another message,
>
>>This is the process policeman again.
>>
>>I think the second question you have raised in this thread concerns the 
>>semantics of reification.  There has been some discussion and I'd like to 
>>clarify whether this discussion has satisfied your concerns or whether we 
>>should get a clear statement of the issue to go on the WG's last call 
>>comments list.
>
>
>If reification has been used in existing applications that will I am sure
>shed light on the semantics of the triples.
>
>A reasonable path then, in keeping with the charter, would seem to be
>  to clarify the semantics of the generated triples (inferences which may
>be made from them, etc) , and leave in those things which are clear in the 
>spec.
>
>I am not personally familiar with the de re interpretation of reification so
>I can't really judge how it would be used.  I would trust the group though
>if they felt it was defined.
>
>One could perhaps look at a future plan for profiles of RDF which re-asses
>what is included in the very core layer.  I think that is important for 
>the simplicity
>of RDF as a foundation for many things.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Brian
>>
>>
>>
>>At 09:35 12/02/2003 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>
>>>This response is to "a developer" the signature on the original posting.
>>>
>>>At 14:15 11/02/2003 -0800, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have a question about implementation of the bagid feature.
>>>>My parser doesn't currently implement it, and so  fails the RDF
>>>>tests which involve it.   The same seems to apply to Ids on
>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Is this feature then worth implementing? What does the group think?
>>>
>>>In an ideal world the answer is "no".  There are several parsers, for 
>>>different languages, that pass all the WG testcases.  Have you 
>>>considered integrating one of those rather than building your own?
>>>
>>>If you really need to build your own, the answer in general is yes, if 
>>>you want to be sure of interoperating with other implementations.
>>>
>>>Brian
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 10:13:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT