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...


> 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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:05 UTC