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

RE: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:35:01 +0100
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00cd01cef71d$6f45f110$4dd1d330$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:16 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> ---------
> Section 7
> Datatypes are <a title="identify">identified</a> by IRIs.
> Interpretations will vary according to which IRIs are recognized as
> denoting datatypes. We describe this using a parameter D on simple
> interpretations. where D is the set of <def>recognized</def> datatype
> IRIs.

s/interpretations. where/interpretations, where/ (the comma)

> <p class="change note"> The previous version of this specification
> defined the parameter D as a <a>datatype map</a> from IRIs to
> datatypes, i.e. as a restricted kind of interpretation mapping. As the
> current semantics presumes that a recognized IRI identifies a unique
> datatype, this IRI-to-datatype mapping is globally unique and
> externally specified, so we can freely abuse notation by thinking of D

s/so we can freely abuse notation by thinking of/so we can think of/ ????

> as either a set of IRIs or as a fixed datatype map. Formally, the
> <def>datatype map</def> corresponding to the set D is the restriction
> of a D-interpretation to the set D. Semantic extensions which are
> stated in terms of conditions on datatype maps can be interpreted as
> applying to this mapping.</p>
> The exact mechanism by which an IRI identifies a datatype IRI is
> considered to be external to the semantics, but the semantics presumes
> that a recognized IRI identifies a unique datatype wherever it occurs.
> RDF processors which are not able to determine which datatype is
> identified by an IRI cannot recognize that IRI, and should treat any
> literals with that IRI as their datatype IRI as unknown names.
> [[Remove the second 'change note']]
> ------
> Two paragraphs later, add a [[sentence]] to the end of the paragraph:

The previous paragraph begins with

  "In summary: RDF literals are either language-tagged strings,
   or datatyped literals"

which is inaccurate IMO. We discussed this before when I wanted to introduce
a term for literals that are not langStrings. Here it bites ourselves.
Language-tagged strings are datatyped literals, consequently the OR in this
sentence is, strictly speaking, wrong. The simplest way out is probably to
just remove the whole sentence.

> .... RDF processors may recognize other datatype IRIs, but when other
> datatype IRIs are recognized, the mapping between a recognized IRI and

s/a recognized IRI/the datatype IRI/ ???

> the datatype it refers to must be specified unambiguously, and must be
> fixed during all RDF transformations or manipulations. [[In practice,
> this can be achieved by the IRI linking to an external specification of
> the datatype which describes both the components of the datatype itself
> and the fact that IRI identifies the datatype, thereby fixing a value
> of the <a>datatype map</a> of this IRI.]]

I don't think we need to add this sentence as we provide no mechanism to do
so in a machine-processable way anyway.

Otherwise this looks good to me.

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 09:35:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC