Re: RDF-ISSUE-11 (Reconciliation of documents): Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones [Cleanup tasks]

On Mar 5, 2011, at 16:17 , Pat Hayes wrote:

> 
> On Mar 5, 2011, at 5:34 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> 
>> 
>> RDF-ISSUE-11 (Reconciliation of documents): Reconciliation of various, semantics-oriented documents with the core RDF ones [Cleanup tasks]
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/11
>> 
>> Raised by: Ivan Herman
>> On product: Cleanup tasks
>> 
>> Since 2004 a number of W3C documents were published that had an effect (extension) on the "core" RDF semantics but they may have gone unnoticed because spread over. The WG may consider folding these into the core RDF documents at least by reference. These are:
>> 
>> - RDF Plain Literal[1] added a new datatype into the RDF namespace
> 
> I agree we should deal with this is some coherent fashion. This is basically fixing a bug in RDF.
> 
>> - POWDER's IRI Set Semantics[2] defines an extension to the core RDF Semantics by defining a "bridge" between URI-s as resources and URI-s as strings
> 
> This is simply defining a new datatype and some associated properties. We could incorporate this into 'official' RDF, but is there any real need to do so?

Most of the people would expect all datatypes in the rdf namespace to be listed in the RDF semantics document. That includes implementers and users alike. There is no need to repeat the semantics and the details, just add a reference to the list of datatypes that are part of 'core' RDF. That is all. Requires about 5 minutes' worth of editing:-)

> 
>> - SPARQL 1.1's[3] upcoming Entailment Regimes document defines a finite 'sub-semantics' for RDF[4] and RDFS[5]; these are restricted semantics that can be handled with a rule engine in a finite manner.
> 
> AFAIKS, the SPARQL regimes do not change the RDF and RDFS semantics at all. They define incomplete but 'sensible' inference schemes for RDF and RDFS, by eliminating various categories of valid but trivial inferences. Which is all very good, but does not change the semantics. 

Absolutely correct. And I did not even mean to imply it does. It is the same as above: by making at least a reference to these in the core RDF documents the community would be more inclined to realize that these exist, that they are condoned by W3C (and damn useful at that:-)

Ivan


> 
> Pat
> 
>> The practical importance of these clearly go beyond SPARQL...
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-formal/#regexSemantics
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/#id35806215
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-entailment/#id35807668
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf