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

Re: Concepts (almost) ready

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:07:52 -0800
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3877624D-FB4F-4679-8894-B1980747DE17@ihmc.us>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>

On Dec 17, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> Thanks Pat for the review!
> 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"
> 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")

I think that is fine. Anyone who is slightly confused but needs more info can read the material in Semantics.

>>> 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
>>> ?? 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].

Fine with me.

> (probably needs some wordsmithing)
>>> 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".

Good, but I still think it is worryingly potentially ambiguous. 

>>> [[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.
> Pat, how do you find my minor tweaks above? Can I go ahead and update the document or would you like to change/improve some of them?

All fine, though I am still worried about the bnode scopes in datasets. 


> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

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 19:08:25 UTC

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