W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > December 2013

Re: ISSUE-165: datatype map

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 12:08:36 +0100
Message-ID: <52B2D3B4.4050408@fzi.de>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
CC: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Public RDF comments list <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Guus,

thank you for letting me know.

Best regards,

Am 19.12.2013 00:26, schrieb Guus Schreiber:
> Hi Michael,
> The RDF WG resolved today during its telecon to close ISSUE-165
> (datatype map):
>    RESOLUTION: the WG resolves to close this issue, with the rationale
> stated in the last
>    response to the commenter [2], noting the objection from the
> commenter in the
>    Transition Request, over objection of  Antoine Zimmermann.
> I'm sorry that we couldn't reach consensus, but we are very grateful for
> the feedback you provided, which helped to make the document better.
> I included [3] in the PR request as a good summary of the rationale
> underlying your objection, but feel free to suggest another email.
> Best,
> Guus
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2013/12/18-rdf-wg-minutes.html
>       (due to a server problem the formatted minutes are not yet available)
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0098.html
> [3]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0077.html
> On 17-12-13 22:57, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> Hello Guus, all,
>> I'm afraid to say that nothing has changed for me. Rather, after the
>> last mail exchange between Pat and myself, which brought some (to me)
>> surprising answers, I am now even more convinced that this change must
>> not make its way into the final standard. I still consider it a
>> substantial technical change rather than an editorial change, its
>> formulation (even with the new textual changes) to be very confusing
>> compared to the original version which I consider very clear, and I
>> still do not see any need or motivation for the change to be made.
>> I do not see a requirement to restate my reasons for my objection, as I
>> have stated them already in considerable detail in my previous mails.
>> Best regards,
>> Michael
>> Am 17.12.2013 14:48, schrieb Guus Schreiber:
>>> Dear Michael,
>>> Thank you for your comment concerning datatype maps, noted in
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0067.html
>>> which
>>> was recorded by the WG as ISSUE-165
>>> (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/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 (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/) 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 Thursday, 19 December 2013 11:09:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:44 UTC