- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:42:16 -0700
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi David: The RDF working group has received your comment, and is tracking it as our ISSUE-159. You should be receiving an official reply in a short while. Peter F. Patel-Schneider for the RDF working group On 10/09/2013 07:41 PM, David Booth wrote: > Regarding > http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-mt-20130723/ > > Section 4 of the RDF Semantics is careful to define all of the major terms > that are used within the document . . . except one. AFAICT, the general > notion of an "interpretation" is nowhere defined. Later in the document, > specific kinds of interpretations are defined, such as Simple > Interpretations, RDF Interpretations and RDFS Interpretations. But AFAICT a > definition of the general notion of an interpretation is completely absent. > > The 2004 version of the semantics had a very nice explanation of the notion > of interpretations: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#interp > and it had a glossary definition of the term: > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInterpretation > > I don't know why the current draft eliminated those sections, but somehow > the RDF Semantics needs to explain what is meant by an "interpretation", > since the notion is central to the semantics. > > I would suggest restoring the explanation from the 2004 version, but I would > be fine with some other replacement instead. > > Thanks, > David >
Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 15:42:48 UTC