Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document

> >> (2) The introduction goes on to state that it "does not change the 
> >> conceptual model of RDF". This is also not correct.
> >>
> >> At present an API working over RDF which is asked for the datatype of a 
> >> plain literal should return the programming equivalent of "there isn't 
> >> one". After the spec such an API should return "rdf:PlainLiteral". 
> > 
> > Is that true? 
> 
> Isn't it?  I've lost the plot on what the intention is.  You tell me 
> what the working group intends to be the answer here.

I don't think we have an opinion, since it's an API issue.

> > My understanding is that it's really up the API and not
> > something that has been standardized.  APIs were always free to do
> > something like this before, and they're free to do something different
> > even after this (hopefully) reaches Rec.  I guess Jena always tried to
> > follow the ideas of the spec quite closely, but I don't think all RDF
> > APIs did, or that the others were wrong for approaching the RDF data
> > from a different angle.
> 
> Sure, that's why I used "should". There is no standardization of APIs so 
> each is free to interpret how the formal specs should be manifested to 
> the actual users.
> 
> That doesn't affect the fact that the conceptual model has changed and 
> so APIs are likely to evolve to reflect this. This is hardly the end of 
> the world. I just found it hard to accept the bald statement "does not 
> change the conceptual model".
> 
> The spec probably does the best that can be done to minimize the impact 
> of the change on interoperability.

How about changing:

     This extension, however, does not change the conceptual model of
     RDF, and thus does not affect the specifications that depend on the
     conceptual model of RDF such as SPARQL

to:

     This extension adds an optional element to the conceptual model of
     RDF, but does not require any changes to software or affect the
     specifications that depend on the conceptual model of RDF such as
     SPARQL.

?

      - Sandro

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 13:34:14 UTC