On Dec 13, 2013, at 11:15 AM, David Booth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pat, > > I'll try to start with a summary of where I think we stand in this > discussion, and then follow with in-line responses:
David, you and I are not having a discussion. I have given up trying to explain model theory to you, and I see no useful purpose in continuing a correspondence on this topic. I will therefore restrict my reply to procedural matters which bear on the activities of the RDF 1.1 working group process and in particular to the RDF 1.1 Semantics document of which I am co-editor. > ... we should also assess where we stand on the practical issue of finalizing > the RDF specifications. AFAICT, most of our underlying disagreements have > been avoided by eliminating language that would cause them to be apparent. > The only two places in the specs where I am still aware that these > differences become apparent: > > 1. (ISSUE-148) The Concepts document ... Please communicate with the Concepts editors regarding this issue. > 2. (ISSUE-145) The Semantics document currently distinguishes between > "identifies" and "denotes", which I find contrived. Actually, I've already > suggested a resolution to this, and I have not heard back from you about > whether you find it acceptable: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0096.html The only substantive change you suggest to the current wording in the document is an emphasis on the word 'identifies' as being "informal", in contrast to the "formal" model-theoretic semantics. However, I do not think that it is helpful (or indeed accurate) to draw a sharp distinction between "formal" and "informal" notions; particularly when, as in the current Semantics, the former are defined partly in terms of the latter. I believe that the proposed wording changes would not be helpful to most readers, and may actively mislead some readers, who might understand "formal" as a classifier, or take "informal" to have a dismissive or derogatory intended meaning. I also believe that the intended meaning of "identifies" is explained in the current document in a way that clearly distinguishes it from "denotes". For these reasons, I do not propose to modify the wording of the Semantics document in the way that you suggest. Pat
