W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > October 2013

Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF" (ISSUE-147)

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:23:02 +0200
Message-ID: <524C0216.4020007@vu.nl>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dear David,

Thanks for your comment. We have raised an issue for tracking your 
comment [1]. We will get back to you on this.

Best,
Guus, on behalf of the RDF WG

[1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147

On 02-10-13 04:34, David Booth wrote:
> Regarding section 7
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130723/#section-generalized-rdf
>
>
> It does not look like my comments about Generalized RDF were addressed:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0008.html
> [[
> I think the most appropriate place for the definition of "generalized
> RDF" would be in the RDF Semantics document, for two reasons: (a) that's
> where the notion is actually used (to simplify entailment rules); and
> (b) that would give it less prominence and hence reduce the likelihood
> that someone would think it is a form of standard RDF.
> ]]
>
> Also, I still think it needs a stronger warning that generalized RDF is
> non-standard.
>
> Also, in Section 7 "A generalized RDF graph is an RDF graph" should be
> "A generalized RDF graph is a graph", because the whole point is that a
> *generalized* RDF graph is *not* necessarily a conforming RDF graph.
>
> David
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:23:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:58 UTC