Re: comments / review of Concepts

Hi Peter,

On May 22, 2013, at 01:38, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> I read Concept and Semantics on a plane this evening.
> 
> Here are my comments on Concepts.   Consider this a pre-review.

Thanks for this review.  Is another review forthcoming?  Please advise.


> 
> peter
> 
> 
> Comments on  RDF 1.1 Concepts version of 21 May 2013
> 
> Looks very good, with only one significant issue (#1, just below)
> 
> 1/ Social meaning is rearing its ugly head here
> 
> Instead use in 1.3
> - IRIs have global scope:  Two different appearances of an IRI denote the
>  same resource
> - By social convention, ... gets to say what the intended (or usual)
>  referent of an IRI is.  Applications and users need not abide by this
>  intended denotation, but there may be a loss of interoperability with
>  other applications and users if they do so.

I believe you meant "if they do not do so", meaning if they do not abide by the intended denotation.


> - ... For example, ... intended referents ...
> Instead use in 1.5
> - ... should never change its intended referent.


Changes made in the current editors' draft.  I looked at adding a definition for "intended referent" but decided it was unnecessary.


> 
> Consider if I say that the meaning of pfps:foo is the integer 2 and
> the meaning of pfps:bar is the decimal number 2.0.  These are my IRIs so I
> get to do this. Does this mean that any RDF processor that performs (even)
> simple entailment must produce 
> 	ex:foo ex:bar pfps:foo .
> entails
> 	ex:foo ex:bar pfps:bar .


Not to me, no.  Does it to you??


> 
> 2/ Union is not always conjunction
> 
> 1.7 ... the union of two RDF graphs that do not share blank nodes is their
> conjunction.  If two RDF graphs share blank nodes, then conjoining them may
> require merging [defined in Semantics].
> 
> Alternatively, define merge here.
> 
> Alternatively, remove the last sentence of the fragment above.


Please confirm that the changes I made to 1.7 are acceptable to you.

> 
> 3/ Explicitly say which sections are normative ??
> 
> I believe this is 2, 3, 4 (except 4.2), and 5


I do not believe this to be necessary.  Informative sections are so marked and everything else is considered normative.  I do see that (e.g.) the 2004 OWL semantics explicitly marked normative sections as such, but personally think it is overkill.  However, I won't fight anyone over it if you think it is useful.


> 
> 4/ The (DG1,NG1) notation is not defined
> 
> 4.1 The RDF dataset D1 with default graph DG1 and named graphs NG1
> and the RDF dataset D2 with default graph DG2 and named graphs NG2 are …

Yep, good catch.


> 
> 5/ Notes on xsd:string and binary data
> 
> 5.1 Note that xsd:string is not all unicode character strings
> 5.1 Note that xsd:hexBinary and xsd:base64Binary are the only safe datatypes
> for transferring binary information.

Done.


> 
> 6/ Update reference to Semantics
> 
> - currently it is to the 2004 version

Fixed.


> - does it have to be normative, even if there is a pointer to merging?

I think so, yes, and have moved it to normative.

> 
> Editorial changes:
> 1 - remove Issue about in-progress
> 1.2 - The assertion of -> Asserting
> 1.7 - remove Issue about note

> 3.3 Literals are used for values such as strings, numbers, and dates.   The
> literal value corresponding to a literal is defined [later].
> 3.3 Two literals can have the same [value]
> A - remove Issue about note

Done.


Thanks again.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood