Re: multiple-graph example in the Primner

On 12/7/13 1:15 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:23 AM, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 07:26, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Dec 2013, at 11:53 , Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In the telecon yesterday there were some flames about the graph metadata examples in the Primer.
>>>>
>>>> My position:
>>>> - There needs to be at least one example triple in the Primer in which a graph name is being used. Dropping this completely is for the editors a no-go.
>>> I think I agree with that. I know that we failed to properly define that stuff; that is now water under the bridge. But we also _know_ that many people out there will just use graph names in the way Guus describes it below, whether we like it or not, whether we condone it in the specification or not. Consequently, to ignore that usage pattern in the primer is really just burying our head in the sand; we can bet that many books, tutorials, etc, will do it independently of what we say. Better make it explicit in our primer with a caveat (ie, Note) we can agree on.
>>
>> I definitely agree with Guus and Yves on this.  We need to provide guidance to the community of users even (especially) in the absence of standard semantics.
> IMO, and I hold this opinion very strongly indeed, the only guidance we can or should give on the absence of a standard semantics is that no guidance is available. We should NOT tell users to use RDF in a way that is clearly and unambiguously not supported by the normative specifications.
>
> I will formally object to any content in the RDF primer (or any other document produced by the WG) which suggests that RDF 1.1 supports the use of graph names in RDF metadata to refer to the named graphs. RDF 1.1 does NOT support this, and we should not recommend it.
>
> It is ridiculous (and dishonest) to say that RDF has a normative semantics, to describe this semantics clearly and unambiguously, and then in a primer recommend a use for it that was considered and debated at length in the WG and which the WG formally decided to NOT support by the semantics in the normative specification. Our decision to not specify this semantics might be "water under the bridge" in the sense that we cannot now go back and undo it, but it cannot simply be ignored as though it did not happen. We took a decision, and that decision has consequences. Those consequences must now be lived with, both by our users and by us. We cannot simply pretend that we did not take the decisions because we now find their consequences unpalatable or embarrassing. The fact is, as Jeremy has formally noted, the RDF 1.1 specifications do not support the kinds of use of datasets that are needed by the PROV specifications. That has surely been obvious to everyone in the WG who has been following the arduous debates that we have been having on this topic, so I am surprised that this topic is even be discussed at this late stage.
>
> The argument that people will do things that go beyond the specification is irrelevant. No doubt people will, but that is not the business of this working group. Our job is to write a SPECIFICATION of how RDF SHOULD be used. The primer should at a minimum conform to the actual specification we have written.
>
> Pat

+1

Kingsley
>
>
>>
>>>> - We are happy to consider other examples. Please suggest.
>>>> - We're happy to include other/updated caveats
>>>>
>>> Personally, I am fine with what is below, but I am also fine with stronger caveats if necessary.
>>
>> By all means, add any caveats the WG thinks necessary, but please leave the example in place.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> --
>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>> Current phrasing included below. Text suggestions very much appreciated!
>>>>
>>>> Guus
>>>>
>>>>  From https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-primer/index.html#subsection-multiple-graphs :
>>>>
>>>> [[
>>>> We can write down triples that include a graph name, for example:
>>>>
>>>> <http://example.org/bob> <is published by> <http://example.org>.
>>>> <http://example.org/bob> <has license>
>>>>     <http://creativecommons.org/licenses /by/3.0/>.
>>>>
>>>> These two triples could be interpreted as license and provenance information of the graph http://example.org/bob.
>>>>
>>>> NOTE
>>>> RDF does not define the way in which the graph name and the graph are related. It is therefore up to application developers to decide how to interpret such triples.
>>>> ]]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
> phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen