Re: D-entailment question in http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/PR-rdf11-mt-20140109/

Axel,

(Not an official WG response)

The definitions you're looking for are in RDF 1.1 Concepts. A good understanding of Concepts is sort of a prerequisite for any of the other specs.

Best,
Richard


> On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:53, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@wu.ac.at> wrote:
> 
> Dear RDF 1.1 WG,
> 
> First of all let me thank the WG for their efforts and work on gettin the new RDF1.1 spec to PR.
> My new affilation organization (WU Wien) has recently joined W3C and I have started looking 
> in a bit more detail into the new specs.
> 
> When looking over the definition of D-entailment, and also related comments on the list, I have some small question:
> 
> If I see it correctly, and that’s good news, D-entailment is no longer stacked on top of RDFS Entailment. I very much welcome this change.
> Next, I wonder only about one thing regarding the removal of datatype maps. As I understand the discussions, the intention here is 
> to simplify things, by assuming that known IRIs *identify* datatypes, i.e. there is a fixed interpretation for such known IRIs, 
> and that this fixed interpretation of a datatype IRI aaa is associated with a known lexical-to-value mapping L2V.
> 
> However, Section 7.1 seems to have no pointers to a *definition* of what is a *datatype* or a *lexical-to-value* actually is, nor give any information of how a custom datatype is defined, e.g. 
> 
> "For every other IRI aaa in D, I(aaa) is the datatype identified by aaa, and for every literal "sss"^^aaa, IL("sss"^^aaa) = L2V(I(aaa))(sss)”
> 
> seems to miss that L2V is the associated lexical-to-value mapping for I(aaa).
> 
> Also, I find the remote definition of *identify* in section 4 ("when we wish to refer to such an externally defined naming relationship, we will use the word identify and its cognates.”)
> insufficient to give a proper definition to what a datatype is.
> 
> I would kindly ask the group for two things:
> a) to add more explanatory text or pointers to other specs to make these definitions more self-contained.
> b) explain, even if only in an informal section, how custom datatypes should be defined (which several existing RDF datasets do)
> 
> If I understand this correctly, such informal addition as well as adding explaining text or references to other specs containing the resp. definitions 
> would not be a substantial change, and not affect PR status.
> 
> best regards,
> Axel
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Prof. Dr. Axel Polleres
> Institute for Information Business, WU Vienna
> url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2014 08:35:43 UTC