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

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document 
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:44:42 -0500

>> From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: new version of rdf:O)-> document 
>> Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 08:34:05 -0500
>> 
>> > 
>> >> >> (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".
>> 
>> But the conceptual model has *not* changed.  At all!
>> 
>> >> 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
>> 
>> I am against this change to the document.
> 
> As I'm imagining it, any time anyone defines a new datatype, they are
> adding an element to the conceptual model of RDF.      How about:
> 
>       This is an extension for use with RDF that does not change the
>       conceptual model of RDF itself, so the existances of this
>       specification does not mandate any changes to software or affect
>       the specifications that depend on the conceptual model of RDF such
>       as SPARQL.
> 
> Maybe that's true enough for Peter, while avoiding Dave's surprise about
> the claim of not changing the model?
> 
>     -- Sandro

Fine by me, except that the relative clause is a bit hard to attach
correctly.  (What is "RDF that does not change the conceptual model of
RDF itself"?  Perhaps RDF that doesn't do strange things with rdf:type,
etc.?)

peter

Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 14:12:26 UTC