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

Re: RDF semantics draft revision

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 18:34:52 +0100
Message-ID: <51362CBC.1010106@emse.fr>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Le 01/03/2013 20:49, Pat Hayes a écrit :
> The latest draft (pushed a few minutes ago, dated 1 March) of the RDF
> semantics addresses, I believe, all the issues raised by Peter
> recently. These suggestions greatly improved the document, thanks. I
> hope I have eliminated all the colorful language, but Peter, feel
> free to edit if I missed some.
> FWIW, treating rdf:langString as a datatype is a royal PITA.
> This draft has one other significant change, which I mentioned some
> time ago. Interpretations are defined over *all* IRIs and literals,
> rather than over a particular vocabulary V, and so all mention of
> vocabularies has been eliminated. I see this as part of the KISS
> process.

This contradicts our decision not to do this on the 7th November 2012.


to close ISSUE-97: "Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a 
vocabulary?", and you yourself said on the 6th November that:

On Nov 6, 2012, at 12:42 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:

 > Re. ISSUE-97: Should the semantics of RDF graphs be dependent on a 
 > I suggest we close it and do nothing.

I agree. I was keen on this idea for a while, until I started to go into 
the details of the effects it would have. Thanks for hewing a similar path.



Semantics is rather late compared to other documents.  It could have 
been drafted while the concepts were being discussed.  Thanks to these 
discussions, concepts have gone a long way and the document is fairly 
advanced.  Now we are in the final rush, we have to cover the semantics 
of the things we agreed on, without further additions, without reopening 
old issues, and so on.

I find the semantics without a dependency to a vocabulary better and 
simpler, but if we do this, it must be a collective decision, with 
awareness of the consequences on entailment (it has significant 
consequences). It means, we have to reopen the issue, take the time to 
discuss it by email, have a little talk about it using conference time 
and finally agree on a resolution.

It seems to me hard to argue in favour of it, due to our time constraints.


> This makes all interpretations infinite, but an appendix will point
> out that it is only necessary to interpret the part of this infinite
> vocabulary which actually occurs in the graphs under consideration or
> which have applicable semantic constraints (the rdfs: vocabulary for
> RDFS-entailment, etc.), thereby allowing for finite interpretation
> structures. (Some care is needed to handle the RDF container
> properties. All the theoretical work behind this has been done by
> terHorst, who will be duly cited.)
> This keeps the main body of the semantics simpler and easier to read,
> while providing the necessary information for logicians (who can be
> expected to read appendices.) This appendix will be normative, and
> will define the older terminology ("interpretation *of a vocabulary*
> ") as before, maintaining conformity with spec documents which rely
> on this aspect of the 2004 semantics. I hope y'all approve.
> Pat
> PS. If you are looking at a version dated 28 February, get the more
> recent version before proceeding.
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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

Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 17:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:26 UTC