- From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:30:03 -0800
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPqY83w0NykJOQD6iQ5VuXa9Kezfo4C_tk4b44xGunWT_mxm+g@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > 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. > The resolution on scoping was to put it in TriG and N-Quads, does http://www.w3.org/TR/trig/#terms-blanks-nodes and http://www.w3.org/TR/n-quads/#BNodes address your concern? > > Pat > > > > > > > -- > > 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 19:30:38 UTC