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

Re: Concepts (almost) ready

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:30:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPqY83w0NykJOQD6iQ5VuXa9Kezfo4C_tk4b44xGunWT_mxm+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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

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