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: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 07:23:21 -0400
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>,RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <15759d08-a5c0-475c-9b7b-13defe19f561@email.android.com>


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>

Is there a compelling explanation of why this decision was made?   Maybe something about practitioners in the field should already know this, ... because only kr professionals should be reading this document?    Hm, that's not where I thought that sentence was going.....   Anyway, yeah, why was it shortened?

      - Sandro

>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
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:23:15 UTC

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