W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

Re: Alternatives to containers/collections (was Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:39:53 -0600
Cc: "Sampo Syreeni" <decoy@iki.fi>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-Id: <04518DFA-9445-4F43-81B4-BB1102BC05A7@ihmc.us>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On Jan 15, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Sampo Syreeni wrote:
>
>> On 2010-01-15, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> Well, simple rules are sometimes good guides to behavior. I take it
>>> that you would prefer the much more complicated advice, to let it  
>>> all
>>> hang out.
>>
>> As for me, I'd make it straight. What do we want from the standard?
>> Spell it out loud, now,
>
> Ok, so I will tell you what /I/ want, and I will spell it out loud:
>
>    NO REMOVAL OR DEPRECATION (NOT EVEN "SILENTLY")
>    OF ANY FEATURE CURRENTLY EXISTING IN RDF!
>
> Isn't that a very simple rule?
>
> And I believe it matches quite well the first few mails in this  
> thread which
> sounded to me as if many people "do not want to fix what isn't  
> actually
> broken".

But some of it IS broken. The plain-literal/xsd:string mixup is  
broken. The special status of rdf:XMLLiteral is broken. Containers are  
broken, they were broken from the get-go. (Not collections, ie lists,  
which are ugly but useful.) IMO, rdf:seeAlso is broken, because  
although it does get used, the uses are nowhere even remotely  
compatible with one another. Reification is broken, because it has  
never been given a satisfactory semantics. (I would bet a good beer  
that there isn't a single deployed use of RDF reification that  
strictly conforms to what the spec says about it, normatively.)  
Arguably, the whole business of D-interpretations for datayping is  
broken: not because its actually wrong, but because nobody pays it any  
attention. What everyone actually does is simply assume that the XML  
schema datatypes are built-in as a part of RDF, which is probably what  
we should have said in the spec itself, instead of trying to be  
"general-purpose" about datatyping. IMO, the RDF/RDFS distinction is  
broken, but maybe we should just not go there, I admit.

Pat

>
> Regards,
> Michael
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> = 
> ======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael  
> Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> = 
> ======================================================================
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Saturday, 16 January 2010 05:41:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC