Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your comment concerning datatype maps, noted in which 
was recorded by the WG as ISSUE-165 
You requested that we "bring back the old notion of a datatype map." In 
subsequent correspondence, we explained that the idea is in fact still 
present in the newer description, it being the restriction of a 
D-interpretation mapping to the set D of recognized datatype IRIs. Since 
your email suggested that this was not as clear as we had intended, we 
have re-worded parts of the relevant section 7 to give this as an 
explicit definition of the 2004 concept of 'datatype map' and added a 
sentence to clarify how other specifications and recommendations which 
refer to and impose extra conditions on datatype maps, can be 
interpreted as applying to the newer form of description. We also added 
a sentence clarifying how external specifications of datatypes can 
typically define both the type itself and the fixed interpretation of 
its referring IRI, using the "datatype map" language to help make the 
connection clear.

You also objected that there was no motivation for making the change to 
the way that the semantics is described. Here we disagree. The newer 
style of description is more intuitive, less artificial, simpler (fewer 
semantic clauses, fewer new concepts introduced), more uniform with the 
rest of the semantic description (the mapping in question is simply a 
partial interpretation mapping) and more directly related to concepts in 
wide use in other Web standards and literature, such as the 2004 
Architecture of the Web ( document. It 
also introduces the useful terminology of "recognition" of a datatype 
IRI, which is used throughout the document and also in the Concepts 
document, and which we anticipate will be useful more generally.
We also note that the changes to which you objected are editorial and 
descriptive rather than substantive, since no semantic structures are 
changed, and no entailments are changed.
Please check the wording changes referred to above in the latest version 
of the Semantics document, section 7, and respond to this list 
indicating whether this response resolves the issue raised by your 
comment, including [RESOLVED] in the subject line if it does resolve 
this to your satisfaction.

In my role as chair I should add that I think this issue has been 
discussed now in sufficient depth. If you cannot live with the outcome 
please let is know, stating the reasons for your objection.

Guus Schreiber
on behalf of the RDF Working Group

Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 13:49:14 UTC