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

[RESOLVED] Re: RDF Semantics - Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to interpretations (ISSUE-149)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 09:25:19 -0400
Message-ID: <525D423F.6050606@dbooth.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I am satisfied with this resolution.


On 10/09/2013 06:06 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Greetings David:
> This is an official RDF working group response to your message
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0010.html
> on Section 5.2, Intuitive Summary, of the RDF 1.1 Semantics document.
> The Working Group thanks you for your concerns on this aspect of the RDF
> recommendations, which have been tracked as ISSUE-149.
> Section 5.2 is an informative section and was only put in as an short,
> easier-to-understand gloss of some of the the preceeding more-formal
> section.  Both your comment and the ensuing discussion have made it clear
> that the section is not achieving its purpose.  As there appears to be no
> consensus on what changes, if any, should be made to the section, it is the
> intent of the working group to just remove the entire section.
> Could you please respond to public-rdf-comments@w3.org as to whether
> removing this non-normative, non-formal section would satisfactorily
> address
> your concern?  If you are satisfied, then the section will be removed from
> the document.
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> for the W3C RDF WG
> On 10/01/2013 10:15 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html
>> Section 5.2 Intuitive summary needs to be scoped to a particular
>> interpretation or set of interpretations.  At present the
>> interpretations are implicit, and this is misleading because it
>> suggests that the notion of a graph being true is somehow independent
>> of an interpretation, whereas in fact the truth of a graph critically
>> depends on the interpretations that are chosen.
>> I suggest rewording the first sentence of this section from: "An RDF
>> graph is true exactly when: . . . " to: "An RDF graph is true exactly
>> when there exists an interpretation such
>> that: . . . "
>> Also, the verb "interpret" is being used in this clause: "2. there is
>> some way to interpret all the blank nodes in the graph as referring to
>> things,", but that causes confusion with the notion of an
>> interpretation (which is a function).  It would be better to use a
>> different verb at this point.
>> Also point 4 mentions "these interpretations", but it isn't clear what
>> interpretations are meant.  Perhaps it means the results of the verb
>> "interpret" in item 2?  In which case, a different word should be used
>> here also.
>> Thanks,
>> David
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2013 13:25:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:43 UTC