Re: Update semantics LCC

Hi Peter,

At 14:54 15/01/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>Summary:  The updated semantics LCC still has critical problems.
>
>Comment:  As I am not a member of the RDF Core WG, I don't completely
>understand what the semantics of RDF is supposed to be.  Thus I am not a
>good person to comment on whether the semantics LCC actually matches the
>intent of the RDF Core WG.  Given the number of errors that I have caught,
>both internal inconsistencies and mismatches with my partial understanding
>of the intent of the RDF Core WG, I feel that the document needs a thorough
>review by someone who can check that it matches the intent of the RDF Core
>WG.

I think that's a good point.  We have had three reviewers go through it, so 
I think its close to our intent, but your sharp eyes have identified some 
issues.  One of the issues may be that we have looked at it so often.  We 
are not seeing it with fresh eyes.  One of the reasons I think we need to 
get more eyes on it.

[...]

>The semantics still has strange behaviour with respect to
>rdfs:Literal and untyped literals.

I note your later post where you point out this may be covered but need 
clearer explanation, if I understand you correctly.

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0091.html

[[Actually, it might be OK, but only because ...]]

I'm currently inclined to deal with this in last call, but we will discuss 
this at Friday's telecon.

[...]


>The Lbase appendix still has errors.  It does not accord rdfs:XMLLiteral
>its special status with respect to language tags.  It is not a consequence
>of the RDFS model theory that rdfs:XMLLiteral(?x) implies rdfs:Literal(?x).
>It is not a consequence of the RDFS model theory that untyped literals
>belong to rdfs:Literal.  There are other errors as well.

Hmm, that's a shame.  However, again I think of these as editorial errors 
and suggest that we take those that we can't do as a quick fix, as last 
call issues.

[...]


>The Lbase document is still not a W3C Note.  It should have some formal
>status before the Semantics document goes to last call, as changes to it
>will affect the Semantics document.

Right.  Its been ready for a while, we've just been prioritizing other 
things.  Publication is already approved - we just need to crank up the 
publishing machine.

Brian

Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 13:05:08 UTC