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

Re: Sloppy inference rules

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 11:57:46 +0000
Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8B4E6F15-6173-4777-A978-1E227553FAA0@cyganiak.de>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Markus, others,

On 1 Nov 2012, at 09:50, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> Honestly it sounds a bit strange to me to simply accept that there is a
> fundamental problem without trying to address it

http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter

“Some features are explicitly out of scope for the Working Group: Removing current restrictions in the RDF model (e.g., literals not allowed as subjects, or blank nodes as predicates)”

The charter was written up as a response to a survey of the community that W3C conducted in 2010. One of the suggested work items for the WG was: “Allow literals as subjects.” This got, by a significant margin, the least support of all suggested work items.

Thus, there is excellent evidence that the charter correctly represents the desires of the community.

Those who are in favour of this feature should read the free-text comments that some respondents submitted:

http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/rdf-2010/results#xg13

Given this general view, even if the charter was silent on the topic, consensus on changing the abstract syntax seems *very* unlikely. In the absence of consensus on a change, the status quo will persist.

May I ask you and the other members of the vocal minority that keeps bringing up this topic what you are hoping to achieve by doing so?

All the best,
Richard
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2012 11:58:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:52 GMT