Re: No reference to RDF 1.0

On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Miguel <miguel.ceriani@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> in my opinion, and not as an official request to the group, this is
> part of a "first version problem" of some Semantic Web specs.
>
> The first version of W3C recommendations for RDF, OWL, SPARQL (and
> possibly other standards) are all referred in newer versions as "...
> 1.0", while these original versions retain on the W3C site their
> version-less title.
> This instead not the case for other W3C recommendations as XML 1.0,
> SVG 1.0, XHTML 1.0.
> I don't know if these latter recommendations have been given a version
> number from the beginning (a good practice indeed) or it has been
> added later (in that case it could be done for clarity also to RDF and
> other recs).
>

If by "this" you mean the problem that I reported, you misunderstand me. My
complaint was not about how things are named, but on how names are
resolved. The operative principle in formal writing is that if document A
(the one under preparation) refers to document B, then A should provide a
proper bibliographic reference to B so that a reader can find B. It doesn't
matter what B is called inside of A - 'RDF 1.0' or 'Frank' or 'that other
thing'. Regardless of whether the name A uses for B is private to A, or is
the same name as used elsewhere, there *must* be a bibliographic reference
so readers can determine what is meant by that name.

In web contexts, this is the "follow your nose" principle; in scholarly
writing it's simply good practice and goes back hundreds of years.

This is a really simple matter and has been taken care of (to the extent
currently possible) by the addition to the errata, which I appreciate.
(although to quibble, the recs *do* provide history links, so that's not
the issue; the problem is unresolvable uses of the phrase 'RDF 1.0'.)

Best
Jonathan


>
> Best Regards,
> Miguel Ceriani
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Antoine Zimmermann
> > <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jonathan,
> >>
> >> (this is not an official answer from the WG)
> >>
> >> The email below by Dan Brickley explains that RDF 1.0 was not called
> like
> >> this before the RDF 1.1 working group came into existence.  So, there
> is no
> >> document that describes something called RDF 1.0.  However, what we
> mean by
> >> this is the RDF specifications from 2004.
> >>
> >> RDF 1.1 Primer has a reference to the 2004's RDF Primer. You are right
> >> that a reference to it in "What's new in RDF 1.1" would be relevant (or
> >> perhaps to "Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract
> >> Syntax").
> >>
> >> Nonetheless, please consider that the document says:
> >>
> >> "This document is meant to serve as a guide for those already familiar
> >> with RDF 1.0 who wish to understand changes in version 1.1."
> >>
> >> So, the reader should know already what it is talking about. Those who
> >> don't know should not read this document and just start with the RDF 1.1
> >> Primer or RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract syntax.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the errata update, but with all due respect, I think what you
> say
> > here is wrong, and it sounds like an excuse. There is a sentence with a
> > referring term 'RDF 1.0' and there is a perfectly good reference, but no
> way
> > for the reader to make the connection - especially since the reader may
> know
> > it under a different name. The reader will have no way of knowing
> *anything*
> > about RDF 1.0 (or RDF versionless), such as whether it is something they
> > already know about, unless they know what is being talked about.
> >
> > It is not just the Changes note that has this problem; 'RDF 1.0' occurs
> in
> > the Concepts and Semantics TRs as well.
> >
> > I see now that Concepts and Semantics both have a 'previous
> recommendations'
> > header that I missed (I started out looking for 2004 RDF, not 'RDF 1.0').
> > However I think I am justified in missing it since I was searching for
> 'RDF
> > 1.0', 'supersedes', and things like that, scanning the 'status of this
> > document' and introduction sections, and reading the references lists and
> > the 'previous versions' header. 'Previous recommendations' was not in my
> > search image.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> --AZ.
> >>
> >> Le 24/11/2014 15:12, Dan Brickley a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I don't believe either the 1997-1999 RDF Model and Syntax WG or the
> >>> later RDF Core WG officially called their work "1.0". Either could
> >>> make a case for that label. We framed RDFCore as a cleanup of the
> >>> (premature) 1999 REC,
> >>>
> >>> See http://www.w3.org/2002/11/swv2/charters/RDFCoreWGCharter
> >>>
> >>> Excerpt, "Implementor feedback concerning the RDF Model and Syntax
> >>> Recommendation points to the need for a number of fixes,
> >>> clarifications and improvements to the specification of RDF's abstract
> >>> model and XML syntax. There is also considerable interest in the
> >>> exploration of alternative XML serialization mechanisms for RDF data.
> >>> The role of the RDF Core WG is to prepare the way for such work by
> >>> stabilizing the core RDF specifications. The RDF Core WG is neither
> >>> chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the RDF
> >>> model. However, the group is expected to re-articulate the RDF model
> >>> and syntax specification in such a way as to better facilitate future
> >>> work on alternative XML encodings for RDF."
> >>>
> >>> That said the original RDFS work (from the 1998-2000 RDF Schema WG, a
> >>> distinct WG) did use "1.0" terminology, however we never got the spec
> >>> to REC in the 1st WG, only under RDF Core. Closest we got was CR:
> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/ ... then bogged down
> >>> by turf conflict with XML Schema.
> >>>
> >>> So 1.0 is really rather hazily defined even if 1.1 is clear :)
> >>>
> >>> On 24 November 2014 at 14:01, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Forwarding to the comments list. I will add it to the errata.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Dave
> >>>> --
> >>>> http://about.me/david_wood
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>
> >>>> Date: November 21, 2014 at 14:27:58 EST
> >>>> Subject: No reference to RDF 1.0
> >>>> From: Jonathan A Rees <rees@mumble.net>
> >>>> To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This document: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-new/  makes references to
> >>>> something called "RDF version 1.0" without any explanation or
> reference.
> >>>> This seems to me like a serious flaw in the document. There is no way
> to
> >>>> figure out what this document is even talking about.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact I am having a very hard time finding a pointer to RDF 1.0
> since
> >>>> none
> >>>> of the RDF 1.1 documents provide a pointer to it, as far as I can
> tell.
> >>>>
> >>>> I propose that a reference to RDF 1.0 be added to the errata.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan
> >>>>
> >>>> (lazily writing to you directly to avoid the hassle of joining
> >>>> public-rdf-comments)
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Antoine Zimmermann
> >> ISCOD - Institut Henri Fayol
> >> École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
> >> 158 cours Fauriel
> >> CS 62362
> >> 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
> >> France
> >> Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
> >> Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
> >> http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
> >
> >
>