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

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.

thanks

Jeremy


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.