ISSUE-165: CR Comment: datatype map
datatype map
CR Comment: datatype map
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDF Semantics
- Raised by:
- Guus Schreiber
- Opened on:
- 2013-10-22
- Description:
- Comment by Michael Schneider
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0067.html
* ยง7: The notion of a "datatype map" has been effectively
replaced by a new notion of "recognized IRIs". No further
explanation is being given for this change. I have to note
that the notion of datatype maps has been used and is
deeply integrated in several of the other core Semantic Web
specifications: SPARQL 1.1 (in the SPARQL Entailment
Regimes spec), OWL 2 (specifically in the RDF-Based Semantics),
and RIF (in the RDF-and-OWL Compatibility spec), and it is
probably generally in quite wide use, for example in many
scientific papers and books. I believe the notion of a
datatype map as very basic and relevant for the stack of
semantics specifications that are based on the RDF Semantics
spec. In addition, I have never encountered any bigger problem
with this notion, even though I have been highly involved with
it during the years, in particular in my work as the editor
of the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics. So under these circumstances,
I consider this change harmful for the foundation of the Semantic
Web, and with the lack of any rational the change even appears
to me to be an arbitrary choice. In my opinion, it goes too far
for a "1.1-style revision" of the RDF specification. In summary,
I cannot accept this change and ask the WG to bring back
the old notion of a datatype map.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Fwd: RDF 1.1 is a W3C Proposed Recommendation (Call for Review) (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2014-01-09)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2014-01-06)
- Re: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from schneid@fzi.de on 2013-12-19)
- Re: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-12-19)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2013-12-18)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2013-12-18)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-12-17)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2013-12-17)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from schneid@fzi.de on 2013-12-17)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-12-17)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-12-17)
- Re: Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-12-17)
- Re: Concepts (almost) ready (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-12-16)
- Resolution needed: ISSUE-165: datatype map (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-12-16)
- Concepts (almost) ready (from markus.lanthaler@gmx.net on 2013-12-16)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-12-07)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from richard@cyganiak.de on 2013-12-07)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from schneid@fzi.de on 2013-12-07)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from schneid@fzi.de on 2013-12-05)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-12-05)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from schneid@fzi.de on 2013-10-27)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from schneid@fzi.de on 2013-10-27)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-23)
- Re: telecon 23 Oct: draft agenda & preparation (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-23)
- Re: comments re issue-166 (from antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr on 2013-10-23)
- Re: comments re issue-166 (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-23)
- Re: comments re issue-166 (from sandro@w3.org on 2013-10-23)
- comments re issue-166 (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2013-10-23)
- Re: telecon 23 Oct: draft agenda & preparation (from pfpschneider@gmail.com on 2013-10-23)
- Re: Comments on Last-Call Working Draft of RDF 1.1 Semantics (from guus.schreiber@vu.nl on 2013-10-22)
- RDF-ISSUE-165 (datatype map): LC Comment: datatype map [RDF Semantics] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2013-10-22)
Related notes:
we can handle this during CR, given it's not a substantive change. Commenter agrees we can handle this during CR
See https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-23#resolution_7
Resolved at 18 Dec 2013 telecon
https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-12-18#resolution_9
The WG resolves to close this issue, with the rationale stated in the last response to the commenter (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Dec/0098.html), noting the objection from the commenter in the Transition Request, over objection of AZ
Display change log