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

Re: Making progress on graphs

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 12:53:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFoe=2o6rYJQNmDSOC_2zf_uDBgwbFiA2_YykKDQ6FOv5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 14 May 2012 12:49, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
> Hi Sandro,
>
> On 13 May 2012, at 22:29, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> Richard's proposal (with some minor tweaks in how he defined dataset
>> [1]) happens to be in line with my proposal, but I'm rather opposed to
>> it as a matter of principal
>
> The WG tracker has 27 open issues and 6 raised issues.
>
> Your position is that you object as a matter of principle to resolving about half of the open issues, except if they're all resolved as a package. This is even though the proposed partial resolution supports your position and appears to have WG consensus.
>
> In the meantime, the editors of the syntax, model and primer documents are (to slightly exaggerate) twiddling their thumbs waiting for some decisions to be made.

RDFS thumbs are also twiddling...

Dan

> So that they can start work on grammars, examples, and systematic reviews of other WG's related specs.
>
> This is in the month when, according to the charter, we were supposed to go to LC.
>
> Can you please explain how formally resolving some uncontroversial issues that you personally support can possibly be a bad thing?
>
> Best,
> Richard
Received on Monday, 14 May 2012 10:53:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT