Re: comments / review of Concepts

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:22 PM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> > I say no, also because Concepts should be as small as possible.
>
> Fair enough. But I still repeat that this is stuff that *all* readers of
> the RDF specs should see, and apparently a large fraction of them never
> read Semantics.
>

Well can't speak for everyone but the new version is VASTLY
more approachable then the 2004 edition. Thanks Pat and Peter!

--Gavin


>
> Pat
>
> >
> > peter
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> >> Gentlemen,
> >>
> >> What do you think about putting some of the material currently in
> Semantics section  4.1 into Concepts section 6? I have no axe to grind on
> this, but maybe we should at least consider the idea. It is not directly
> concerned with semantics so much as the machinery of combining graphs into
> larger ones, which seems like fairly basic stuff that all RDF users should
> know about.
> >>
> >> I can volunteer to do the actual typing required to produce a draft, as
> I have a fairly smooth workflow going at this point.
> >>
> >> Pat
> >>
> >> On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:26 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 06/19/2013 09:25 AM, David Wood wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> Consider that as a full review.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>> Yes.
> >>>>> - ... 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??
> >>>
> >>> Of course not, but I think that we have to be careful to not imply
> this in any way shape or form.
> >>>
> >>> The current wording here is acceptable.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> I think that some minor changes should be made to go along with the
> new Semantics stance on union and merge:
> >>>
> >>> If two or more RDF graphs share blank nodes, then unioning [point to
> Semantics] them preserves the shared identity of the blank nodes.  If this
> is not desired, the two graphs can be merged [...], which effectively
> destroys this shared identity.
> >>>
> >>> This is purposefully vague.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> I just thought that in the current regime things were supposed to be
> explicitly spelled out this way.  If not, then no problem.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks again. Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood
> >>>
> >>> I'm happy with the current state of the document, modulo blank nodes
> as graph names.
> >>>
> >>> peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------
> >> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> >> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> >> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> >> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> >> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>