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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 01:31:16 -0500
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3239DF45-F875-4863-B831-CBB1139A5F00@ihmc.us>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

On Oct 10, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:

> "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?

There was general criticism of the 2004 specs as being too long and too 'heavy' to read. Part of the criticism was directed to the 'tutorial' padding in the semantics, as inappropriate to a specification. I suggested redrafting a leaner, meaner technical spec with the idea of adding an intuitive primer style document seperately. The WG seemed to be united in their approval of this idea, and this is what I did.

>   Maybe something about practitioners in the field should already know this, ... because only kr professionals should be reading this document?  

I would be happy to say that, but if it is thought to be impolitic, I'm also happy to not say it. 


>   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.

IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 11 October 2013 06:31:44 UTC

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