Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

Hi Michael,

Could you indicate whether you can live with the WG response on 
ISSUE-165 (see below)?

Thanks in advance for your reply,

On 23-10-13 18:10, Pat Hayes wrote:
> Michael, greetings.
> This is a response to your comments on RDF 1.1 Semantics, recorded by
> the RDF WG as ISSUE-165 and ISSUE-166. I will deal with ISSUE-165
> first and the various parts of ISSUE-166 in-line, below.
> Regarding ISSUE-165, this matter was debated extensively within the
> WG, and most of your points were made during this discussion. (see
> and subsequent threads.) The primary reason for the change was to
> simplify the presentation of the RDF semantics, which was an
> overarching goal of the WG. The actual mathematics has not altered,
> as the 2004 semantics required D-interpretation mappings to conform
> to the datatype map, so the datatype map is simply a part of (a
> restriction of) the interpretation mapping itself. Once this is
> recognized, it is clearly simpler to treat it in this way rather than
> as a separate mapping. In addition, it had been noted by several
> commentors that the 2004 definitions allowed for 'pathological' D
> mappings, such as one which permutes the meanings of the XSD datatype
> IRIs. It was felt that disallowing such maps was a laudable
> by-product of the change. We also note that this change does not
> alter any entailments.
> In response to your comment, I have extended the Change Note in
> section 7 (and moved it to section 7.1) so that it reads as follows:
> "In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification, the semantics of datatypes
> referred to datatype maps. The current treatment subsumes datatype
> maps into the interpretation mapping on recognized IRIs. The
> <dfn>datatype map</dfn> corresponding to D is exactly the restriction
> of a <a>D-interpretation</a> mapping to the set D of
> <a>recognize</a>d datatypes. The 2004 definitions permitted
> "non-standard" datatype maps (such as one that maps the IRI
> '<code></code>' to the
> datatype identified by
> <code></code>). Semantic
> extensions based on such non-standard mappings are not sanctioned by
> this specification."
> As you will see, this provides a linkable definition of the term
> "datatype map" in terms of the new specification, as well as giving
> more explanation and motivation for the change.
> The WG realizes that you may still have concerns regarding this
> issue. If you feel it would be useful, we invite you to attend a WG
> teleconference to discuss this issue in more depth.


> Pat Hayes (for the RDF WG)
>> Best regards, Michael Schneider
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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)

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:30:07 UTC