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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-159 (interpretations): RDF Semantics - Definition of "Interpretation" is missing [RDF Semantics]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:20:06 -0700
Message-ID: <52561CE6.8000505@gmail.com>
To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I must admit being totally puzzled by this comment.

The referenced section in the previous version of Semantics, 1.3 
Interpretations, is the section that defines simple interpretations, just as 
the first definition of any form of interpretation in the new version does.  
The only difference is that there is some intuitive discussion of what the 
purpose of an interpretation is.  Similarly, the glossary entry for 
interpretation doesn't define interpretations, again just saying what they do.

So it seems that David wants the new version of Semantics bulked up the way 
the old version was.   I much prefer the leaner, meaner new Semantics, and 
would be unhappy to have to put all the fluff back in.

I propose responding with wording to the effect that the general notion of 
interpretation is nowhere used in either the previous version of Semantics or 
the new version, and was nowhere defined in either the old version of 
Semantics or the new version, so there is no missing definition.  I propose to 
also say that it was an editorial decision to shorten Semantics, leaving out 
much of the unnecessary explanatory material.

peter



On 10/09/2013 08:10 PM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> RDF-ISSUE-159 (interpretations): RDF Semantics - Definition of "Interpretation" is missing [RDF Semantics]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/159
>
> Raised by: Peter Patel-Schneider
> On product: RDF Semantics
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0035.html
>
> >From David Booth
>
> Regarding
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-mt-20130723/
>
> Section 4 of the RDF Semantics is careful to define all of the major terms that are used within the document . . . except one.  AFAICT, the general notion of an "interpretation" is nowhere defined.  Later in the document, specific kinds of interpretations are defined, such as Simple Interpretations, RDF Interpretations and RDFS Interpretations.  But AFAICT a definition of the general notion of an interpretation is completely absent.
>
> The 2004 version of the semantics had a very nice explanation of the notion of interpretations:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#interp
> and it had a glossary definition of the term:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210/#glossInterpretation
>
> I don't know why the current draft eliminated those sections, but somehow the RDF Semantics needs to explain what is meant by an "interpretation", since the notion is central to the semantics.
>
> I would suggest restoring the explanation from the 2004 version, but I would be fine with some other replacement instead.
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 03:20:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC