W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [All] Proposal: RDF Graph Identification

From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:30:17 +0100
Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CCD80680-ADDB-490F-B563-26E9484B880B@garlik.com>
To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
I have strong negative reactions to the term space, it has all sorts of unfortunate connotations, but that could well be just me. Other than that this seems broadly OK.

FWIW, my opinion is that there's not a lot we can really say on the subject. It's clear that there's not a lot of consensus around what RDF Graphs "mean". Maybe there will be in the future, maybe not.

Cheers,
   Steve

On 2012-08-16, at 14:17, David Wood wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The chairs and team contacts for the RDF WG have been working to create a proposal to break the deadlock regarding the "named graphs" portion of our charter.  We call our proposal "RDF Graph Identification" [1].
> 
> This proposal has some major differences from previous proposals, but borrows tremendously from many of them.  It is an attempt to find a middle ground, close to minimal, but sufficient to formally define commonly implemented practices and encourage implemented use cases already found in the wild.
> 
> This document is *not* intended to be published, nor to have editors past the proposal stage (i.e. don't be confused by scaffolding provided by the use of ReSpec).  Instead, it is intended to be used as source material for changes to other documents (RDF Concepts, Semantics and various format specs).  Each section contains a note showing the intended distribution for that section's material.
> 
> Guus, Ivan, Sandro and I have consulted with Andy, Richard and Pat on some details.  Although all of our names appear on the document, that does not infer that everyone on that list agrees with everything there.  Indeed, everyone has something in the proposal that makes them uncomfortable.  We are, however, trying to come together to find a solution.
> 
> Many challenges remain before we can claim victory for the RDF WG.  Failing to address the "named graphs" requirement in our charter would not only be a major public embarrassment, but would significantly damage the Semantic Web Activity's perception in both the public eye and within the W3C.  I therefore ask each of you to do the following:
> 
> - Please read the proposal carefully in its entirety
> - Please take a breath :)
> - Please react professionally and courteously (avoiding nitpicks, personal attacks, etc)
> - Please suggest *concrete changes* to the document (instead of, e.g., simply denigrating existing content)
> 
> I look forward to working with all of you to find a path forward.  Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/RDFNG.html
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Steve Harris, CTO
Garlik, a part of Experian
+44 7854 417 874  http://www.garlik.com/
Registered in England and Wales 653331 VAT # 887 1335 93
Registered office: Landmark House, Experian Way, Nottingham, Notts, NG80 1ZZ
Received on Friday, 17 August 2012 10:37:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:06 UTC