Re: Proposed issue resolutions

Hi Frank,

Frank Manola wrote:

[...]


> 
>>Propose postpone
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-equivalent-uris
>>
>>on the grounds that it is out of scope of the charter.
>>
> 
> I agree with what I think the idea is, but I assume we're going to state
> this somewhere public, so I'd like to see a little more in the actual
> wording so those interested don't think we're sweeping this under the
> rug (like, we agree that some way of stating equivalence is important,
> we just don't think it fits in our "rewrite/clarification" of RDF-1;  it
> could go in an RDF-2;  there's a capability for doing this in DAML+OIL
> so there are layering questions;  etc.]


How about:

Whilst the WG recognises the importance of a mechanism for defining equivalence 
of URI's, the WG has decided it does not fit within the limited scope of its 
current charter.  The WG also notes that DAML+OIL has an equivalence mechanism 
which raises the question of which layer of the stack best suits such functionality.

Feel free to improve or suggest a replacement.


> 
> 
>>Propose postpone
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-contexts
>>
>>on the grunds that it is out of scope of the charter.
>>
> 
> I'd suggest we see what we wind up doing with reification before
> summarily disposing of this one.  There's a connection.


OK - this one is dropped from the list for now.


> 
> 
>>Propose postpone
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-containers-otherapproaches
>>
>>on the grounds that it is out of scope of the charter.
>>
>>Propose close
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-formal-semantics
>>
>>on the grounds that the model theory adequately addresses this issue.
>>
> 
> In terms of the technical problems to be solved, I agree with Peter PS
> on this one, but it seems to me this might be recast to say that if we
> deal with reification and containers (which have their own issues) then,
> given the existence of the model theory, do we need a separate issue on
> formal semantics in general?  (There are actually a lot of issues on our
> list intertwined like this.)


Interesting approach.  How about

on the grounds that the model theory adequately addresses the general issue of a 
formal semantics for RDF.  New issues:

   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-reification-formal-semantics
   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-containers-formal-semantics

have been raised to record more specific semantic issues.


> 
> 
>>Propose close
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-formalism
>>
>>on the graounds that the model theory adequately addressses this issue.
>>
> 
> I don't understand this issue anyway.  Dan?


This is the use/mention problem in reification.  Drop this from the current list 
and link in with the more general rdfms-reification-formal-semantics.  My mistake.


> 
> 
>>Propose close
>>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-logical-terminololgy
>>
>>on the grounds that the new terminology introduced by the model theory
>>adequately addresses this issue.
>>
> 
> Do these grounds mean that we're *only* going to use terminology from
> the model theory?  For example, does it mean that the Primer shouldn't
> talk about an "RDF Data Model"?  Lots of people know what a data model
> is;  some of them can even manage to disambiguate that from a model in
> logic!


No.  I didn't intend them to mean that.  I meant that in the model theory we 
have defined RDF in terms of terminology acceptable to logicians.  We have for 
example used the word 'graph', where in other contexts, such as API's, the term 
'model' has been used.

Clearly we should use the model theory terminology where we can.  We MUST always 
be consistent with it.  But I see no reason why the primer cannot use other 
terms familiar to its audience in explanations.  In fact its probably essential.

I regard the terms 'model' and 'data model' as being different.

I suggest that the wording of proposal can stand.  The new terminology of the 
model theory adequately addresses the issue which was *inconsistency* between 
RDF and logical terminology.  The model theory provides an acceptable 
terminology consistent with logicians usage.  We must of course be careful not 
to introduce any inconsistencies in other terminology introduced elsewhere.

Note that DanC who raised the issue has seconded the proposal.

Brian

Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 14:57:13 UTC