Re: Adding Extended RDF Graphs and Datasets to Concepts

David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I have reviewed the minutes of yesterday's telecon and see that there
>was a straw poll (but no resolution) to add a non-normative set of
>definitions [1] relating to extended RDF graphs and datasets to
>Concepts for use in Semantics.  
>
>These definitions are, I think, intended to grant permission to RDF
>compliant serialization formats like JSON-LD to allow the looser
>restrictions.  Is that correct?
>
>I acknowledge that I need to make the changes to Concepts.  This takes
>care of Guus' ACTION-276 [2].
>
>However, I admit to being confused about this line in the minutes [3]
>:)
>[[
>Peter Patel-Schneider: that's 'generalized' could be 'generalized', not
>generalized could be generalized (further)
>]]

Not sure how the minutes ended up that way, but the idea was we agreed to use the word "generalized" instead of "extended", since it's been used in the past and is probably clearer anyway.

We did it as a straw poll because it was short notice and non normative/editorial.   My sense was that we'd just approve it as part of publication next week, if no one objects.

     - Sandro

>
>Regards,
>Dave
>--
>http://about.me/david_wood
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Jun/0204.html
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/276
>[3] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-06-26#line0215

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Received on Thursday, 27 June 2013 14:19:47 UTC