- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:05:03 +0200
- To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- CC: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
Le 24/10/2012 06:11, Henry Story a écrit : [skip] > >> 4. I don't see where the use of Bob and Alice actually helps. A >> generic "user" or "user agent" would be fine, as far as I can see, >> since we don't rely on the notion so heavily; > > I'd have to look at it, but I thought that having names made the text > lighter. That is it avoid having to use the word Agent all the time, > which becomes grating. But perhaps you have an example where we > overdid it? On the contrary, you don't do it as promised. You say "we will say Bob wherever we talk about the subject" but most of the time, you say "the subject". The use of "subject" or "agent" is not shocking and is natural, so in the end, I don't see Bob and Alice as being very useful. To make things clearer, I think it is better to use examples, where you can have Bob and Alice, rather than explaining the concepts themselves with Bob and Alice. [skip] >> >> Sec.3.2.4.2: "the query engine MUST support the D-entailment regime >> fpr xsd:hexBinary" -> this implies that the query engine MUST >> support RDFS entailment, since D-entailment subsumes RDFS >> entailement. This is unlikely to be the case. > > yes, which is why I added the algorithm in the next section. I don't > think we can really add that it is unlikely to be the case in a > spec... In the RDF 1.1 WG, Richard Cyganiak emmitted the idea of a light-weight inference regime where only datatype inferences hold. Take a look at this thread: http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/search?type-index=public-rdf-wg&index-type=t&keywords=LV-entailment&search=Search However, this has not been discussed in meetings and telecons, so don't rely on it for the moment. What I'm wondering is why you impose such a strong constraint on the query engine while, IMO, simply normalising xsd:hexBinary would be sufficient as a MUST, and RDFS- or D-entailment would be a SHOULD. In any case, nowhere in the examples or definitions appears a need for inferences, so this conformance constraint comes as a surprise and seems arbitrary. [skip] >> >> C. References: [RDF-SPARQL-QUERY] -> consider reference to SPARQL >> 1.1 (not yet standardised but quite stable already) Why is there a >> referencec to RDFa 1.0 and to RDFa 1.1, both for the formal >> syntaxes and the primers? [TURTLE-TR] -> should use RDF 1.1 Turtle > > that just came out :-) > > should we also update to latest RDFa? Latest RDFa, yes because it is already a recommendation. For Turtle, you can prefer the Last Call version, certainly in good way to become a Rec soon, because the older Turtle was not a recommendation anyway. For SPARQL, the situation is different, SPARQL 1.0 being a Rec as opposed to SPARQL 1.1 where there are still some issues to be solved. But you can probably cite 1.0 as normative and inform the reader that there is 1.1, with a lot of supporting implementations. -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 07:06:23 UTC