Re: review of current status of the "What's New" document (ACTION-330)

On 11/27/2013 01:03 PM, David Wood wrote:
> Thanks, Peter.
>
> I generally agree, but am curious why you think this Note shouldn't 
> mention Skolemization.
>

Me too.    It's often the top of my list when I'm talking to people 
about RDF 1.1, and people seem to react as if it ought to be.

I do find myself hand waving, though, since it's still unclear what 
exactly Skolemization is good for.  It's a bit like handing someone a 
power tool, without showing them how to use it.    (Or the beginning of 
The Hudsucker Proxy, where the protagonist is showing people a drawing 
of a circle, and says knowingly, "You know...  for kids!").

     -- Sandro

> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:32, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> The document isn't nearly finished, so this cannot be a complete review.
>>
>>
>> Suggestion for important changes list:
>> - named graphs
>> - plain literals
>> - datatypes
>> - new syntaxes
>> That's all!  Note, nothing from semantics.
>>
>>
>> There are several places where the document has too much, or 
>> misleading, information.
>>
>> - The paragraph saying the section is about Concepts is misleading 
>> and should be removed.
>>
>> - The paragraph saying that Concepts is definitional only.  This is 
>> not a change, and even if it was, there is no need to talk about that 
>> here.  The paragraph should be removed
>>
>> - Rewrite the new syntax paragraph to something like:
>>  RDF 1.1. introduces a number of new serialization formats. RDF/XML 
>> is no longer the only recommended serialization format and should be 
>> allowed to die a deserved death.   The import of an RDF document is 
>> carried by the RDF graph (or RDF dataset) that results from the document.
>>
>> - The paragraph on DOM madness should read something like:
>>   Planned updates ... rdf:HTML.  DOM version 4 is needed to clarify 
>> functionality ... formats. The unfinished status of ....
>>
>> - Generalized RDF should not be mentioned here.
>>
>> - Skolemization should not be mentioned here.
>>
>> The paragraph on datatypes should say that rdf:XMLLiteral support is 
>> optional.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Semantics section is copied from my message to implementers.  It 
>> carries too much information and duplicates some of the stuff from 
>> before.
>>
>> The paragraphs starting "Literals", "There is", and "The 
>> rdf:XMLLiteral" can all be removed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More when the rest of the document shows up.
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>