- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:37:08 +0200
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dear Michael, Thanks for your comment. We will be tracking these in two separate issues: ISSUE-165: datatype map http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/165 ISSUE-166: non-urgent issues http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/166 We hope to be able to send responses soon. Regards, Guus Schreiber RDF WG co-chair On 22-10-13 01:29, Michael Schneider wrote: > Dear RDF Working Group! > > This is my review of the Last-Call Working Draft of the > "RDF 1.1 Semantics" specification. > > I like to repeat that I wasn't able to finish my review in the > very short given time since the announcement of the LCWD > as of 3 October, and that I have a strong stake on this document. > As for my review of the "Concepts and Abstract Syntax" LCWD, > I have created the review for the most-current Editor Draft, > available at > > <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html> > > In general, I am quite pleased with this document, even with most > of the deliberate changes being made to the original RDF Semantics, > and most of my comments are only about small details, and are not > design-related (and can thus be, in principle, be dealt with later > in the context of the upcoming CR). However, there is a single, > design-related, issue which I consider urgent (as for to be > treated in the context of the Last-Call phase), and important. > > URGENT ISSUES (DESIGN-RELATED): > > * §7: 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. > > NON-URGENT ISSUES (NOT DESIGN-RELATED): > > * §3: The chapter introduces the term "entailment regime", > but does not say much about it. As this term is also > introduced and quite intensively used in the SPARQL 1.1 spec > (in particular by the SPARQL Entailment Regimes spec), I > suggest to be a little more elaborate on the term, in order > to avoid that the terms are not understood differently in > the contexts of the two specifications. > > * §4, 2nd par: I would change the order of "referent and > denotion" to "denotion and reference" to match the order > of the two corresponding terms mentioned earlier in the text: > "denotes and refers to". > > * §5.3 (and for other entailment regimes as well): I suggest > to always be explicit on the entailment regimes, when it > comes to the terms "satisfies", "entails", etc. So it should > always be "simply entails", or "RDF entails", instead of only > "entails", even if this may be obvious from the context (it > probably isn't for everyone). After all, these are definitions > and should be as precise as possible. > > * §5.3: the "Technical Note" on not defining entailment > between graphs is in fact also a Change Note, and should > be marked as such in addition. > > * §5.4: The Simple-semantics theorem "Every graph is > satisfiable" is followed by the statement that "this > does not hold for extended notions of interpretation". > This text should be modified to say that it does not > _always_ hold for extended notions of interpretation. > One could still construct some extended notion where > it does hold, although not for any of the extended > notions in the RDF 1.1 Semantics. > > * §5.4, Technical Note: I recommend to remove the claim about > graphs containing many bnodes that this is "unlikely to > occur in practice". Actually, it is relatively common, > namely for OWL documents with many Boolean class expressions > when serialized in RDF, because for a union or intersection > class expression, the number of bnodes is proportional to the > number of classes occuring in the class expression. > Apart from this concrete case, an assumption of the given kind > has in my opinion no place in a spec document, specifically > not within a technical note. > > * §7, 1st par: typos: > - "... which datatype is identifier by..." should probably > say "identified" > - "... and should treat any literals type": probably > "typed literals" > > * §7, 2nd par: Why does the text not refer to the term > "lexical space", which is introduced in the RDF 1.1 Concepts > document and has been used in the original RDF Semantics > (and other standards as well)? In the given form, I see no > reason for the term's omission, and the text reads rather > awkward without a direct reference to the lexical space. > > * §7, 3rd par: "RDF processors are not REQUIRED". The word > "not" should also be written in uppercase to avoid > misconception while reading the text. > > * §8: Why is there no table presenting the "RDF Vocabulary"? > The RDFS chapter provides such a table, and the original > RDF Semantics did so as well. It would be useful, at least. > > * Appendices: Several of the appendix titles contain the text > "(Informative)", directly followed by the sentence > "This section is non-normative". This is redundant. I suggest > to remove "(Informative)" from the titles, in accordance > with the rest of the document. > > * Appendix D: I don't see a reason to repeat the "non-normative" > declaration for the appendix in each of its sub-sections. > > * Appendix D.2, vocabulary table: I suggest to add the additional > RDFS terms for the container vocabulary as well. > > * References: I do not understand why the following documents > are listed as "normative references": > - OWL2-SYNTAX > - RDF-PLAIN-LITERAL > > Best regards, > Michael Schneider > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 08:37:43 UTC