- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 20:34:33 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@bio.ri.ccf.org>, public-grddl-wg Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
While GRDDL is seen as a "lightweight" (i.e. should be easy to read and implement) spec, a bit of formality can be useful. I agree with DanC's idea to put the N3 Rules out in a separate file, and so make the spec look a bit less scary to people that don't know N3 Rules - but they would still be useful to implementers that know or are interested in N3 rules. I think Dan's normative formal semantics as given by his text is good though, and I would prefer personally if it stayed in the spec. -harry Dan Connolly wrote: > On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 13:22 -0500, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > >>> Thanks so much for all the hard work on the Spec! I'd like at least one >>> more reviewer besides Ron to give a good read before we release it as a >>> Last Call. >>> >> I'll volunteer to help review the spec. I'll try to focus on the >> informative mechanical rules, ... >> > > Any progress? > > On my side, I'm thinking about splitting the "mechanical rules" appendix > to a separate file. Right now I have the first 34 steps of a proof > sorta cleaned up; maybe we can walk thru it in tomorrow's telcon... > or maybe some other time... > http://www.w3.org/2004/01/rdxh/spec_rules.html > revision 1.1 date: 2007/02/07 00:54:09 > > >> as I have a concern that there isn't much >> precedent in using rules to express the processing mechanics of a >> specification >> > > Sure there is... relaxNG, XQuery formal semantics, just to > name a couple off the top of my head. > > >> as well as the informal dependencies on the vocabularies >> used in the rules (the log:* properties in particular as well as >> rdfsyn:*). >> >> The appendix to the mechanical rules has @@explain TODO's >> regarding the vocabularies which are not 'formal', and I think these need >> to be very explicit about what the semantics of these terms are. >> > > I'd like them to be reasonably clear, but I wonder what "need" you see. > > >> The fact >> that the rules rely on generating function symbols makes the underlying KR >> quite expressive and perhaps not aligned with the target KR of the 'sanctioned' >> semantic web rule language (RIF) - which is still a work in progress. >> >> log:uri and log:includes in particular are quite cryptic in their formal >> semantics - at least from what I know of what those terms are meant to >> mean. >> > > log:uri is just like 'name' from KIF, and > log:includes is just rdf simple entailment. > > >> Though the rules are informative, they have the nice advantage that they >> are 'complete' in the sense that proofs can be generated to determine >> GRDDL compliance. The bar for the average GRDDL implementor becomes >> significantly higher if they intend to interpret the rules in any formal >> way, and I think at the very least we should be sure that the specificatin >> is as clear as it can be (given the fact that we still don't have a >> 'sanctioned' SW rule language) about such an interpretation. >> > > By all means, send any clarifications you can think of. > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 01:34:52 UTC