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

Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 00:07:44 -0800
Cc: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <48EF8388-6B42-49B3-B17F-F5CCE34CEEA4@ihmc.us>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>


On Dec 16, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:

> Peter, Pat,
> 
> For this weeks telecon we need a proposed resolution to resolve ISSUE -165 (Datatype maps). I assume that the proposal will be to keep to the current state of affairs, stating briefly the rationale.

Yes, noting the textual modifications that have been made in response to the comments. 

> Could you propose text?

Below.

> 
> Thanks,
> Guus

--------------------------

Thank you for your comment concerning datatype maps, noted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0067.html which was recorded by the WG as ISSUE-165 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/165). 

You requested that we "bring back the old notion of a datatype map." In subsequent correpondence, we explained that the idea is in fact still present in the newer description, it being the restriction of a D-interpretation mapping to the set D of recognized datatype IRIs. Since your email suggested that this was not as clear as we had intended, we have re-worded parts of the relevant section 7 to give this as an explicit definition of the 2004 concept of 'datatype map' and added a sentence to clarify how other specifications and recommendations which refer to and impose extra conditions on datatype maps, can be interpreted as applying to the newer form of description. We also added a sentence clarifying how external specifications of datatypes can typically define both the type itself and the fixed interpretation of its referring IRI, using the "datatype map" language to help make the connection clear.

You also objected that there was no motivation for making the change to the way that the semantics is described. Here we disagree. The newer style of description is more intuitive, less artificial, simpler (fewer semantic clauses, fewer new concepts introduced), more uniform with the rest of the semantic description (the mapping in question is simply a partial interpretation mapping) and more directly related to concepts in wide use in other Web standards and literature, such as the 2004 Architecture of the Web (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/) document. It also introduces the useful terminology of "recognition" of a datatype IRI, which is used throughout the document and also in the Concepts document, and which we anticipate will be useful more generally. 

We also note that the changes to which you objected are editorial and descriptive rather than substantive, since no semantic structures are changed, and no entailments are changed. 

Please check the wording changes referred to above in the latest version of the Semantics document, section 7, and respond to this list indicating whether this response resolves the issue raised by your comment, including [RESOLVED] in the subject line if it does resolve this to your satisfaction. 


------------------------------------------------------------
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
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 08:08:31 UTC

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