W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2009

RE: rdf:text review

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 09:32:11 +0000
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>, 'RDF Data Access Working Group' <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B6CF1054FDC8B845BF93A6645D19BEA362D1328814@GVW1118EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
> Sent: 28 April 2009 10:30
> To: Seaborne, Andy
> Cc: Axel Polleres; 'RDF Data Access Working Group'
> Subject: Re: rdf:text review
> 
> On 28 Apr 2009, at 10:06, Seaborne, Andy wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-rdf-dawg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-dawg-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Axel Polleres
> >> Sent: 28 April 2009 09:37
> >> To: 'RDF Data Access Working Group'
> >> Subject: rdf:text review
> >>
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> I would like to encourage everybody who has comments on it to read
> >> Andy's rdf:text review, such that we can put it forward to OWL+RIF.
> >>
> >> Unless severe additional new comments or concerns come up, I'd
> >> like to
> >> propose to put it forward "as is" as official review of from the
> >> SPARQL
> >> WG to get the process of fixing the concerns going, ideally after
> >> today's telecon or at least after the F2F (in case we can't agree
> >> quickly today, we should have some discussion about it at the f2f).
> >
> > The text sent should have some proposals for changes to the
> > rdf:text (at least in outline) to address the issues raised because
> > some of these issues have been around for sometime now (Dec 2008).
> > The current draft reply has not got that far and certainly not to
> > WG consensus.  See my other message for the beginning of this with
> > areas needing text changes.
> >
> > It would be good to have your comments on the material so far as
> > you are an editor of rdf:text so, hopefully, we can reduce the
> > number of cycles needed
> 
> I've had some conversation with Boris about Andy's comments and he
> was thinking that not much,

It's hardly a lot of changes but the use of the entailment extension point should go in the rdf:text doc as should the prohibition (if that's what we want to propose) on appearing in SPARQL results.

> if any changes were actually needed to rif:text.

:-)

> It would be good to get clear on this *before* sending
> comments. Perhaps, Axel, Andy, Boris and I could telcon at some point?

This is to be a WG response, not my personal comments and I note Steve is also reviewing the text.  Could the comments go to the WG list?

	Andy

> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2009 09:33:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:38 GMT