W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: RDF 1.1 Primer

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:54:39 +0100
Message-ID: <529C911F.10908@vu.nl>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>

I still owed you responses to comments on Sec. 6 Semantics


On 22-11-13 20:51, Pat Hayes wrote:


> Semantics.
> "This document takes a logical stance on RDF graphs". Remove this
> comment. It suggests that the 'stance' is somehow local to the
> Semantics document. The 'stance' is not taken by the document, but by
> the entire RDF spec.


> I think it would be best in the primer just to say that RDF and RDFS
> (and OWL, and maybe other) vocabularies have a defined semantics
> which supports a range of entailment patterns (rules) that can be
> used to derive new information by deduction. And then just talk about
> those patterns, as you do with the Alice/range/person example,
> without mentioning semantics again.

I think the revised text now does this, taking about the existence of 
different entailment regimes and deferring the rest.

> (After reading some recent email
> threads: you might want to emphasise that these patterns can be used
> without needing to dereference the IRIs in the triples. Apparently
> some newbies find this very hard to understand.)

Not sure how to fit that in. Best would be some foo/bar example, but I 
couldn't think of a proper way to phrase it without creating confusion. 
  Suggestions would be very welcome. No change for now.

> Issue 7: No. If you want to mention combining graphs, do it earlier.
> It is not a particularly semantic issue. I think that all that needs
> be said is that RDF allows you to combine triples from any source
> into a graph and process it as legal RDF.

OK. Removed the issue and will include a statement of that type in the 
RDF Data section.

> Issue 8: It is not Semantics that views graphs this way, all of RDF
> does. So if you want to mention it, say it earlier and don't link it
> explicitly to semantics.

Issue removed without further action.

Thanks again for all the comments, very helpful!


> On Nov 19, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
> wrote:
>> All,
>> Yves, and I think that the Primer is ready for a first round of
>> review by the WG. The Editor's Draft is here:
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#
>> We are still working on Sec. 7 (RDF Data), but would welcome
>> comments on the rest.
>> Guus
Received on Monday, 2 December 2013 13:55:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC