Re: RDF Primer Draft - comments

Antoine,

Sorry it took so long to respond to you last points. See inline.

On 10-02-14 15:38, Antoine Isaac wrote:
> Dear Guus, all,
>
> Thanks you very much for the answers. The changes done have solved many
> of the issues I had raised!
>
> My reaction on the few issues that are left (semi-)open:
>
>>>
>>> First a general editorial comment: I like the way notes flag slightly
>>> less essential details. But in a text that is quite compact, having this
>>> many notes may be counter-productive. Perhaps a couple of them can be
>>> integrated in the main text, like the one on IRIs in section 1?
>>
>> I'll respond to this issue in more detail in the upcoming response to
>> Tom, who made specific suggestions about the NOTEs.
>
>
> Fine. I trust that handling Tom's comments on NOTEs will handle mine!

Originally we had 14 NOTEs. Only 5 remain in the current version.

>>> - 3.5: I know this section has been discussed, so perhaps my comments
>>> will come across as a re-hash, or going against some recent agreement on
>>> the text. Sorry if it's the case...
>>> Even though I really want something on named graphs to be said, I really
>>> find some points quite hard for a primer:
>>>
>>> -- "An RDF dataset may have [...] at most one default graph (i.e. a
>>> graph without a name).": do we really need to mention the constraint on
>>> the default graph, or even default graphs, in this Primer? I believe
>>> that the text could work well without writing about these.
>>
>> We need to talk about them, but I agree we could be clearer. I suggest
>> to talk about "at most one unnamed graph, and use the term "default"
>> only in parentheses. See the new ED.
>
>
> The trick on the "default" named Graph makes the text easier to swallow.
> At least for the people who are really to invest more time in
> understanding what it should be (but I won't re-write my point about
> just removing this from the Primer ;-) )

Understood. As SPARQL uses the term "default graph" we need to make 
Primer reader readers awre of it.

>>> -- "RDF 1.1 does not specify a particular semantics for the relation
>>> between the "graph name" and the graph": I know the RDF group has
>>> discussed the issue at length, but this sentence sounds a bit like a
>>> joke, without any further precision the motivation.
>>> The issue is that the reference to [RDF11-MT,
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-rdf11-mt-20131105/#rdf-datasets] doesn't
>>> really work for me: I guess the solution is in the following sentence
>>> there: "This allows IRI referring to other kinds of entities, such as
>>> persons, to be used in a dataset to identify graphs of information
>>> relevant to the entity denoted by the graph name IRI." But I can't parse
>>> it and come with a concrete example (ie., an example with realistic IRIs
>>> involved in realistic triples) that would show me what's at stake.
>>
>> I'm not sure i follow. This text is not in the Primer, nor in RDF
>> Semantics. Could you clarify? Perhaps an older version?
>
>
> In the version of the Primer that I've read, there was a NOTE with
> "However RDF 1.1 does not specify a particular semantics for the
> relation between the "graph name" and the graph" [RDF11-MT].". My
> problem was that this was a strange sentence, and that the reference
> given to the RDF semantics (that was my second quote) did little to
> explain it clearly. If all the NOTE is dropped then it's not a problem
> for the RDF Primer anymore.

Right, NOTE was dropped.

>>> -- "RDF provides no way to convey this semantic assumption [...] Those
>>> readers will need to rely on out-of-band knowledge to interpret the
>>> dataset in the intended way.": here "no way" and "out-of-band" read as
>>> if it is impossible to convey the assumptions in RDF at all. As you've
>>> discussed, it seems possible to devise appropriate vocabularies (even
>>> though it's outside of the standard)...
>>
>> This wording is an essential part of the compromise we reached in the
>> WG. I'd prefer to keep it this way. Pls check also the revised text in
>> the new ED; maybe this helps. If you still think it is unacceptable
>> for a Primer, feel free to say so and I will propose to reopen the
>> (editorial) discussion in the WG.
>
>
> It is not 'unacceptable', sure. But I don't see why a compromise would
> force you to stick with a wording so strong ("no way", "out-of-band")
> that it feels contradictory with the fact that the group does suggest
> solutions to the issue.
> Granted, the options from [RDF11-DATASETS] are not part of the core
> standard. Yet they exist, and they are represented with RDF. So 'RDF
> provides no way to convey this semantic assumption' reads wrong.
> Couldn't it be just replaced by "RDF provides no standard way to convey
> this semantic assumption"?

I suggest to add indeed "standard" in the first sentence. I can also 
suggest to explain "out-of-band" a bit more, "e.g. community practice". 
But for the reasons stated earlier we want to leave it at that.

>>> - 7. The reference to http://datahub.io/organization/lodcloud could
>>> raise problems. The Data Hub's move from 'groups' to 'organizations' and
>>> the fact that a dataset can be in only one organization has resulted
>>> many datasets disappearing from their original grouping. I'm afraid the
>>> same thing may have happened for the LODCloud group. The LODCloud group
>>> still includes RDF datasets and can be used as a source of example, but
>>> I believe it's not representing the most recent LOD Cloud as we know it
>>> at http://lod-cloud.net/state/.
>>
>> OK,. For the moment I'll add an issue and discuss the best point to
>> refer to in the WG.
>
>
> OK. I'm really curious to see the outcome of the discussion!

There does not appear an optimal solution. We changed the link to

     http://datahub.io/dataset

which seems to be a better place  to link to than the one before.

New version is at [1].

Thanks again for your comments,
Guus

[1] 
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#section-multiple-graphs

> cheers,
>
> Antoine

Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 12:49:07 UTC