- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:26:46 +0100
- To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I've now updated Concepts as explained below: > On Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:40 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > On 17 Dec 2013, at 05:25, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > [...] > > > 1.2 "Unlike IRIs...blank nodes do not denote specific resources." I > > > know we have been through this before, but this statement still makes me > > > shiver, because blank nodes *do* denote resources, just as IRIs do, so a > > > very large burden is being placed here on that word "specific". This > > > would be both more accurate and read better if it said "..do not > > > identify specific resources". The document does use "identify " in this > > > sense in other places (eg 1.3), and it is widely used in the sense in > > > other foundational Web documents, in particular the WebArch document > > > which discusses IRI collisions. > > I'm fine with replacing > > "Unlike IRIs and literals, blank nodes do not *denote* specific resources" > > with > > "Unlike IRIs and literals, blank nodes do not *identify* specific resources" Done. Since we have a similar denote/identify discussion going on, could people please have a look at this. > We could perhaps also clarify it by adding a > > "... but simply indicate the existence of some unknown resource" > > (perhaps with a better word for "indicate") Didn't add this. > > > 1.5 "It does not deal with time, and..." I think this is better > > omitted. It could be misunderstood as denying the following paragraph. > > The rest of the sentence says what needs to be said more clearly. > > > > Would be fine with me. > > +1 Done > > > ?? 1.6 Might it be helpful to put an informative reference to > > Antoine's semantic survey right after "There are many possible uses for > > RDF datasets." ? > > > > +1, the document should absolutely be referenced somewhere, > > Yeah, but this is probably not the right place as Antoine's document doesn't talk about use cases but possible semantics. I would propose to add something like the following sentence to the note in section 4: > > A discussion of different RDF Dataset semantics can be found in [RDF11-DATASETS]. Added to section 4, not to section 1.6 > > > 4. "Blank nodes MAY be shared between graphs in an RDF dataset." > > Um, I now see that this can be understood in different ways. What I > > think (hope) is intended here is, that if the same bnodeID is used in > > two graph documents in the same dataset, then that means that those two > > graphs do share a bnode. But what it could be read as saying is that > > whether or not they share the bnode is optional: they might or they > > might not. Which would be a very unfortunate reading. > > > > You are right. > > > > How about simply lowercasing the MAY? It's not meant as something > > that's optional for conformance, but simply to indicate a possibility. > > So, MAY in the RFC2119 sense is inappropriate. > > > > Alternatively, “can be shared”. > > +1 to "can be shared". Change to "can be shared". > > > [[IMPORTANT]] In the Note: "... the graph name does not formally > > denote the graph." This is wrong as stated, and kind of dangerous in a > > normative section as it seems to prohibit graph names from *ever* > > denoting graphs. Also the use of "formally" seems to suggest two kinds > > of denotation (formal and informal) which is misleading. Any of these > > alternatives would work: > > > > > > the graph name need not denote the graph. > > > the graph name is not required to denote the graph. > > > RDF does not require the graph name to denote the graph. > > > > I like the last two options. > > The second option flows the best when inserted in the text IMO. Replaced with the second option above. -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 17:27:24 UTC