Re: [comment] Formal Semantics, Section 4.3

Michael, hi again.

On Thu Apr 30 21:48:10 2009 Michael Schneider said:

> >I shall now proceed to respond to the first three points,
> >hopefully clarifying how the POWDER extension realizes this.
> Short summary: I still believe that it is wrong. Please see my comment
> inline.
> [longer explanation snipped]

Thank you for your dilligence and for your explanations. This is a
genioune bug that needs fixing.

> Here are my concrete suggestions:
> (1) Do not longer talk about rdf:XMLLiterals, talk about /IRIs/ 
> instead. In particular, talk about the 1:1 correspondence between 
> IRIs and their string representation. Consider, optionally, to cite 
> the IRI spec, where the string representation of IRIs is defined: 
> <>.

Agreed, but I would prefer talking about URI references, following the
RDF specs. In POWDER, regexps are meant to be matched against absolute
Unicode strings after all canonicalization steps described in the DR doc
have been applied. And I see in RDF Concepts [1] that URIrefs are
Unicode and absolute, so that looks good enough.

> (2) You should probably also avoid talking about 
> "equivalence relations", since for equivalence relations the 
> domain and range are normally the same, and, in particular, they 
> are always reflexive, which is clearly not the case for the 
> 1:1 correspondence between IRIs and their string representation
> (otherwise, the 1:1 correspondence would be redundant). Saying 
> "1:1 correspondence" instead seems to me the better choice.


> (3) In addition, I think it isn't necessary to talk about 
> the "extension of" such a 1:1 correspondence. It seems redundant, 
> since we are talking about a binary relation, anyway. It might 
> also lead to confusion to RDF people, who are using the term 
> "extension" to distinguish between properties as individuals on 
> the one hand, and the extensionally defined binary relation
> that is called the "property extension" on the other hand.


> I would consider all these changes purely bug fixes and editorial, 
> so no need to go through a fourth LC. :)

Totally aggree.

I will prepare a new draft of the Formal doc today.
Once again thanking you for your efforts,


Received on Wednesday, 13 May 2009 07:11:21 UTC