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

Re: references and acknowledgements . (trumpet blowing)

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:58:01 +0100
Cc: "public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments" <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-Id: <07BCE65B-29E4-495B-ACF0-99D61F55DB48@cyganiak.de>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc1729@gmail.com>

[not an official response]

Brian, Graham and yourself were mentioned as previous editors in the front matter of the previous WD:

I was happy with that state of affairs. I don't know why this was changed in the latest WD. Dave should know.

The lineage of ideas doesn't go directly from the Named Graphs paper to RDF 1.1. It goes through SPARQL. Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, none of the SPARQL specs acknowledge the Named Graphs paper. Personally, I think that an informative note in Concepts that explains the relationship of RDF 1.1 datasets and SPARQL datasets would add value (given that, perhaps surprisingly to some readers, neither normatively references the other). An offhanded mention of the Named Graphs paper could perhaps be sneaked into such a note.


On 6 Sep 2013, at 21:16, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> This is a comment on the current last call documents (concepts and semantics)
> I note that there is no mention of Brian McBride's role in the previous round of specifications 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020617-f2f/
> "The WG decided that bwm will be "series editor" for the WG documents."
> - obviously Brian is no longer fulfilling this role, but it is conventional to maintain some reference to former editors in the acknowledgements or somewhere.
> I also note that Graham and I are not called out as former editors in the Concepts acknowledgements, in particular, the sentence: "The RDF 2004 editors acknowledge " fails to mention who those editors were!
> I am also slightly disappointed that there is no informative reference to Named Graphs, Provenance and Trust by Carroll, Bizer, Hayes & Stickler; with this I realize that the bar is much higher than with acknowledgements to former editors so my disappointment is lower!
> Overall though I believe the documents may benefit from a review of the acknowledgements section by some member of the WG.
> Jeremy
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 17:58:25 UTC

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