W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159)

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:42:28 -0400
Message-ID: <526745A4.5050708@dbooth.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
[Copying www-archive instead]

Hi Pat,

On 10/22/2013 08:58 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> David, you didn't get a response from me on this:
>> ISSUE-159 is almost satisfactory.  I emailed Pat Hayes off list
>> about this, and have not yet seen a response: [[ [Off list]
>> Hi Pat,
>> That looks good except that the font on the word "interpretation"
>> is wrong: it is not appearing in bold as other defined terms appear
>> when they are introduced.
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology
>>Could you please fix that so that I can send back my
 >> official response
>> saying that I am happy with this resolution?
>> Thanks, David ]]
> because I never got that message :-). Now I have it, my response is
> as follows.
> The fonts are assigned by ReSpec depending upon the content markup.
> This is not marked as a definition.

Right, but it *should* be marked as a definition.  It says: "An 
interpretation is . . . " and then it goes on to discuss specific kinds 
of interpretations, which of course are defined elsewhere.  The fact 
that specific kinds of interpretations are also defined elsewhere does 
not in any way nullify the fact that this paragraph defines the generic 
notion of interpretation.

> As the text states, all the
> definitions are given subsequent to this paragraph. There are no
> internal hyperlinks to this paragraph; all internal links from any
> use of "interpretation" would go to the appropriate definition of
> simple interpretation, RDF interpretation, etc.. If this were marked
> as a definition, then all these links would redirect to here rather
> than where they should redirect to.

Are you sure about that?  When I look at the source I see HTML like this:
<p>A particular such set of semantic assumptions is called a 
<dfn>semantic extension</dfn>. Each <a>semantic extension</a> defines an 
<dfn>entailment regime</dfn> of entailments which are valid under that 
extension. RDFS, described later in this document, is one such 
<a>semantic extension</a>. We will refer to an entailment regime by 
names such as <em> RDFS entailment</em>, <em>D-entailment</em>, etc. </p>

I would be pretty surprised if an occurrence of "<a>simple 
interpretation</a>" would be linked to "<dfn>interpretation</dfn>" 
instead of being linked only to "<dfn>simple interpretation</dfn>".

In any case, it looks wrong as is, so if it needs to be manually bolded 
in order to appear like a definition then that would also be a 
reasonable work-around.  But bolding is important to help readers both 
find it and realize that it is a definition.


> I am not sure if this is still an official correspondence, but as it
> is CCd to public-rdf-comments, let us treat it as one. Please reply
> to public-rdf-comments indicating whether you find this resolution of
> ISSUE-159, with my added explanation, above, acceptable.
> Pat
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wednesday, 23 October 2013 03:42:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:52 UTC