Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

#

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

move rdf1.1 change note boxes to change section in appendix #79

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Feb 27, 2025
Merged

move rdf1.1 change note boxes to change section in appendix #79

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9960ee8
move rdf1.1 change note boxes to change section in appendix
pfps Feb 6, 2025
b85445c
Update spec/index.html
pfps Feb 6, 2025
99e8e8b
generalize from RDF 1.1
pfps Feb 11, 2025
d91df69
Update spec/index.html
pfps Feb 27, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
128 changes: 66 additions & 62 deletions spec/index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -65,25 +65,6 @@
}


.changenote {
font-size:small;
margin: 1em 0em 0em;
padding: 1em;
border: 2px solid #cff6d9;
background: #ffddfe;
}

.changenote::before {
content: "Change Note";
display: block;
width: 150px;
margin: -1.5em 0 0.5em 0;
font-weight: bold;
border: 1px solid #cff6d9;
background: #ffddef;
padding: 3px 1em;
}


.fact {
padding: 0.5em;
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -120,7 +101,6 @@
</section>

<section class='introductory'><h2 id="notes">Notes</h2>
<p class='changenote'>Notes in this style indicate changes from the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics.</p>
<p class='technote'>Notes in this style are technical asides on obscure or recondite matters.</p></section>
<section>
<h2 id="introduction">Introduction</h2>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -427,21 +407,6 @@ <h2>Simple Interpretations</h2>
</tr>
</table>

<div class="changenote">
<p>The 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics defined simple interpretations relative to a vocabulary.</p>
<p>In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, IL was a total, rather than partial, mapping.</p>
<p>The 2004 RDF 1.0 specification divided literals into 'plain' literals
with no type and optional language tags, and typed literals.
Usage has shown that it is important that every literal have a type.
RDF 1.1 replaces plain literals without language tags by literals typed with
the XML Schema <code>string</code> datatype,
and introduces the special type
<a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-language-tagged-string"><code>rdf:langString</code></a>
for language-tagged strings.
The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]].
</p>
</div>

<p class="technote">Simple interpretations are required to interpret all <a>names</a>,
and are therefore infinite.
This simplifies the exposition.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -741,31 +706,11 @@ <h2>Skolemization (Informative)</h2>
<section id="datatypes">
<h2>Literals and datatypes</h2>

<p class="changenote">In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification,
datatype D-entailment was defined as a <a>semantic extension</a> of RDFS-entailment.
Here it is defined as a direct extension to basic RDF.
This is more in conformity with actual usage,
where RDF with datatypes is widely used without the RDFS vocabulary.
If there is a need to distinguish this from the 2004 RDF 1.0 terminology,
the longer phrasing "simple D-entailment" or "simple datatype entailment"
should be used rather than "D-entailment".</p>

<p>Datatypes are <a>identified</a> by IRIs.
Interpretations will vary according to which IRIs are recognized as denoting datatypes.
We describe this using a parameter D on simple interpretations,
where D is the set of <dfn data-local-lt="recognized">recognize</dfn><em><strong>d</strong></em> datatype IRIs.</p>

<p class="changenote">The previous version of this specification defined the parameter D
as a <a>datatype map</a> from IRIs to datatypes,
i.e. as a restricted kind of interpretation mapping.
As the current semantics presumes that a recognized IRI identifies a unique datatype,
this IRI-to-datatype mapping is globally unique and externally specified,
so we can think of D as either a set of IRIs or as a fixed <a>datatype map</a>.
Formally, the <dfn>datatype map</dfn> corresponding to the set D is the
restriction of a <a>D-interpretation</a> to the set D.
Semantic extensions which are stated in terms of conditions on <a>datatype maps</a>
can be interpreted as applying to this mapping.</p>

<p>The exact mechanism by which an IRI <a>identifies</a> a datatype is considered to be
external to the semantics, but the semantics presumes that a recognized IRI <a>identifies</a>
a unique datatype wherever it occurs.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -897,10 +842,6 @@ <h2>D-interpretations</h2>
the <a data-cite="XML11#NT-Char"><em>Char</em> production</a> in [[XML11]].
Such strings cannot be written in an XML-compatible surface syntax.</p>

<p class="changenote">In the 2004 RDF 1.0 specification,
ill-typed literals were required to denote a value in IR,
and <a>D-unsatisfiability</a> could be recognized only by using the RDFS semantics.</p>

</section>

<section id="D_entailment">
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1353,9 +1294,6 @@ <h2>RDFS Interpretations</h2>
</tr>
</table>

<p class="changenote">In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, LV was defined as part of a simple interpretation structure,
and the definition given here was a constraint. </p>

<p>Since I is an <a>RDF interpretation</a>, the first condition implies that IP
= ICEXT(I(<code>rdf:Property</code>)).</p>

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -2263,6 +2201,69 @@ <h2>Acknowledgments</h2>

</section>

<section id="section-Changes" class="informative appendix">
<h2>Substantive Changes</h2>

<section id="ChangeLog-11" class="informative appendix" >
<h2>Substantive changes between RDF 1.0 and RDF 1.1 </h2>

<ul>

<li>
The RDF 1.0 semantics defined simple interpretations relative to a vocabulary.
</li>

<li>
In the RDF 1.0 semantics, IL was a total, rather than partial, mapping.
</li>

<li> The RDF 1.0 specification divided literals into 'plain' literals
with no type and optional language tags, and typed literals.
Usage has shown that it is important that every literal have a type.
RDF 1.1 replaced plain literals without language tags by literals typed with
the XML Schema <code>string</code> datatype,
and introduced the special type
<a data-cite="RDF12-CONCEPTS#dfn-language-tagged-string"><code>rdf:langString</code></a>
for language-tagged strings.
The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]].
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure whether the sentence "The full semantics for typed literals is given in section [[[#datatypes]]]." is needed. We describe changes between RDF 1.0 and RDF 1.1 and now link to the section in RDF 1.2?

</li>

<li>In the RDF 1.0 specification
datatype D-entailment was defined as a <a>semantic extension</a> of RDFS-entailment.
In RDF 1.1 it was defined as a direct extension to basic RDF.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
In RDF 1.1 it was defined as a direct extension to basic RDF.
In RDF 1.1, it was defined as a direct extension to basic RDF.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do not view this as a desirable change.

Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed Feb 11, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@pfps — What's your argument against adding this comma? Perhaps my reason for adding it will be made clearer if you look at the preceding sentence, which starts In the RDF 1.0 specification,.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

As an editor I feel that this change isn't needed.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the comma from the previous sentence.

Copy link
Member

@TallTed TallTed Feb 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's not the correct choice. The "In RDF 1.1" and "In the RDF 1.0 specification" are each an independent clause, and should be followed by a comma when they start the sentence. They could be moved to the end where they need not be preceded by a comma (e.g., Datatype D-entailment was defined as a <a>semantic extension</a> of RDFS-entailment in the RDF 1.0 specification. It was defined as a direct extension to basic RDF in RDF 1.1.), but this would make the meanings of the sentences less clear.

This is more in conformity with actual usage,
where RDF with datatypes is widely used without the RDFS vocabulary.
If there is a need to differentiate from the RDF 1.0 terminology,
the longer phrasing "simple D-entailment" or "simple datatype entailment"
should be used rather than "D-entailment".
</li>

<li>RDF 1.0 specification defined the parameter D
as a <a>datatype map</a> from IRIs to datatypes,
i.e., as a restricted kind of interpretation mapping.
As RDF 1.1 presumed that a recognized IRI identifies a unique datatype,
this IRI-to-datatype mapping is globally unique and externally specified,
so we can think of D as either a set of IRIs or as a fixed <a>datatype map</a>.
Formally, the <dfn>datatype map</dfn> corresponding to the set D is the
restriction of a <a>D-interpretation</a> to the set D.
Semantic extensions which are stated in terms of conditions on <a>datatype maps</a>
can be interpreted as applying to this mapping.
</li>


<li>In the RDF 1.0 specification,
ill-typed literals were required to denote a value in IR,
and <a>D-unsatisfiability</a> could be recognized only by using the RDFS semantics.
</li>

<li>In the 2004 RDF 1.0 semantics, LV was defined as part of a simple interpretation structure,
and its definition in RDFS interpretations was a constraint.
</li>

</ul>

</section>

<section id="ChangeLog-12" class="informative appendix" >
<h2>Substantive changes since RDF 1.1</h2>

Expand All @@ -2276,6 +2277,9 @@ <h2>Substantive changes since RDF 1.1</h2>
</ul>
</section>

</section>


<section id="index"></section>

</body></html>
Loading