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

Re: rdfs:Graph ? comment on http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-dataset and issue 35

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:25:43 -0700
Cc: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D9EDAC9C-921E-432F-838A-C0DE41F960E2@syapse.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Hi Pat

thanks for the background.
I would find it useful to have a couple of pointers to WG Wiki, mailing lists or minutes concerning the dispute you summarize.



On Sep 8, 2013, at 11:51 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:

> The SPARQL specifications do not even refer informatively to our paper, you may have noticed. Clearly, appeals to such matters as academic priority have no weight in such a debate. When I dug in my semantic heels, the response was that it would be better to rewrite the RDF semantics rather than allow this 'naming' rule to stand, and indeed several such suggestions for emasculating the RDF model theory were made, and can be found in the WG Wiki.

Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 16:26:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:36 UTC