Re: Datatype Maps, was Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

Hi Sandro!

Just this one for now (I have to leave to work :-)): I agree that 
putting this "At Risk" for the moment seems to be a good idea. I'll then 
have some time to check myself the technical consequences, if any. For 
now, I don't see it as a purely editorial change, since fundamental 
terminology used in the old RDF Semantics and several other core 
Semantic Web standards is being removed/replaced.


Am 22.10.2013 02:47, schrieb Sandro Hawke:
> Some clarifying questions, not an official response.
> On 10/21/2013 07:29 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> * ยง7: The notion of a "datatype map" has been effectively
>>   replaced by a new notion of "recognized IRIs". No further
>>   explanation is being given for this change. I have to note
>>   that the notion of datatype maps has been used and is
>>   deeply integrated in several of the other core Semantic Web
>>   specifications: SPARQL 1.1 (in the SPARQL Entailment
>>   Regimes spec), OWL 2 (specifically in the RDF-Based Semantics),
>>   and RIF (in the RDF-and-OWL Compatibility spec), and it is
>>   probably generally in quite wide use, for example in many
>>   scientific papers and books. I believe the notion of a
>>   datatype map as very basic and relevant for the stack of
>>   semantics specifications that are based on the RDF Semantics
>>   spec. In addition, I have never encountered any bigger problem
>>   with this notion, even though I have been highly involved with
>>   it during the years, in particular in my work as the editor
>>   of the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics. So under these circumstances,
>>   I consider this change harmful for the foundation of the Semantic
>>   Web, and with the lack of any rational the change even appears
>>   to me to be an arbitrary choice. In my opinion, it goes too far
>>   for a "1.1-style revision" of the RDF specification. In summary,
>>   I cannot accept this change and ask the WG to bring back
>>   the old notion of a datatype map.
> Am I correct in understanding this is an editorial matter?  That is, no
> entailments would be different, no test cases would be different, and no
> software would have to change to remain in conformance?
> Would it help to include a Note about what used to be called "Datatype
> Maps", so that people reading those papers, etc, and following the
> reference, and then looking at the more recent spec instead would be
> able to find them?
> Finally, I'll note that we might want to use "At Risk" on this -- we
> could include a flag saying that we might bring back Datatype Maps
> during CR, although if (as I suspect) this is editorial anyway, this is
> probably unnecessary.
>          -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 06:42:01 UTC