Re: status of comments pfps-02 pfps-03 pfps-04 pfps-05 pfps-06

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: status of comments pfps-02 pfps-03 pfps-04 pfps-05 pfps-06
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:19:52 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> I've been reviewing the results of RDFCore's last call process and note 
> that my status list is showing that you have not accepted some of the 
> WG's responses on comments relating to the semantics document:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-02
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-03
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06

> Pat tells me that some progress has been made on at least some of these.
> 
> Accordingly, could you please state whether any of these issues are 
> acceptably resolved in the current RDFCore published WD:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20030905/
> 
> or in subsequent discussion.
> 
> Brian



-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-02

This comment has not been adequately addressed.  I believe that there
has never been a translation from RDF to LBase that even resulted in
syntactically correct LBase.  The most-recent communications on this topic
that I have received from the RDF Core Working Group have been
unsatisfactory.

The translation from RDF to LBase still results in incorrect LBase syntax.
For example, the RDF untyped literal "\" is translated into '\', which will
result in syntax problems in LBase.  Translation of RDF URI references that
contain non-ASCII characters are also problematic, I believe.  There may be
other problems here - I have not checked thoroughly.

I also note that the LBase syntax itself is ambiguous, which I have already
pointed out.  I have not received a satisfactory response to this
communication. 

My messages of 31 August 2003 and 5 September 2003
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0297.html,
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0302.html)
are relevant to this issue.  The latter has not received a response.

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-03

This comment has not been satisfactorily resolved.  There is still no
indication of the use the translation from RDF to LBase serves in the RDF
specifications.

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-04

This comment has not been satisfactorily resolved.  There has been no
official communication on this issue since my message of 14 August 2003
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0262.html).

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-05

This comment has not been satisfactorily resolved.  There is still no
syntactic characterization of entailment in RDFS.  My message of 14 August 2003
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0261.html)
details this and other concerns I have with the RDFS entailment rules.
Some of the minor issues in this message have been somewhat resolved in
later RDF Core Working Group Working Drafts, but this does not resolve the
major concern I have in this area.

-> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-06

This comment has not been satisfactorily addressed.  
I have not received any official communication from the RDF Core Working
Group after my message of 23 July 2003
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JulSep/0051.html)
on this topic.  The current versions of the RDF Core Working Group Working
Drafts may have adequately resolved this issue, but there has been no
indication that I can find to this effect.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider

Received on Thursday, 25 September 2003 10:37:43 UTC