Re: datatypes (Re: Review RDF 1.1 Semantics (ED 3rd June 2013))

Short answer: there is no argument in this answer. It simply describes 
the situation in 2004 and the situation in 2013. I stick to my objection.


In 2004: given a mapping D, I had a fully specified entailment regime.

In June 2013: given a D, I have a whole family of entailment regimes, 
but if I am provided with the mapping from IRIs in D to datatypes, I can 
find out to what D-entailment I'm referred to. To make sure that we're 
always given the complete entailment regiems, we add some text outside 
the formal definition to the effect that the mapping MUST be given or 
known. This is supposed to be understood as if there was a formal 
constraint on the interpretation of the recognised IRIs.

Not only the new design formally imposes to provide the mapping (so why 
not give it a name and call it D) but it makes it a bit convoluted. I 
don't see how this can possibly clarify anything. But in addition, it 
amounts to no actual change in either implementation or formal results. 
So, if it does not change anything, why the change? It's changing for 
the sake of changing.

Why are you struggling so fiercefully to NOT use datatype map? You don't 
have any evidence of any problem related to this. All modifications, if 
they change the normative definitions, should come with a clear 
indication that the change is required and/or beneficial.
In your response hereafter, you do not provide any argument: you simply 
describe the two situations. I know the situation.


Le 15/06/2013 20:05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider a écrit :
> Here is my reply on the datatypes portion of the thread.  I have
> deliberately not included any of the previous discussion.
>
>
> To have a datatype in 2004 you said:
>
> I'm doing D-entailment where D = {<foo:bar>,A} and A is my datatype
> with lexical space, value space, and L2V map.
>
> Now you say
>
> I'm doing D-entailment where D = {foo:bar} and foo:bar is my datatype
> with lexical space, value space, and L2V map.
>
> That's the entire change, modulo that for certain IRIs the datatype
> is fixed by the RDF spec and now doesn't even have to be mentioned.
>
>
> peter
>
>
> PS:  Well, except that I think that the semantic conditions for
> D-intepretations have to be strengthened to say that an IRI in D has
> to denote the datatype that it identifies.  I don't believe that I
> have seen a response on this point.

That's what happens when one tries to fix something that is not broken. 
You introduce problems and troubles. There was a clear, clean, 
straightforward solution that would have led us to Last Call much 
faster: to not change D beyond requiring that normative XSD, RDF and OWL 
datatypes must be interpreted as they should be.


I will make a concrete proposal indicating the kind of text I would like 
to see.


-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2013 16:35:46 UTC