- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:54:39 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Yves Raimond <Yves.Raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Pat, I still owed you responses to comments on Sec. 6 Semantics Guus 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. Removed. > 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! Guus > 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