Re: Concepts Update

Changes discussed on the telecon of 8 May 2013 and made in the editor's draft.  I will commit shortly.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



On May 8, 2013, at 11:00, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> 
> Yes.  This version doesn't address ISSUE-118 yet.  I will make those changes next.
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
> 
> 
> 
> On May 8, 2013, at 10:46, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 
>> Um.. Didn't we decide to eliminate the notion of a datatype map? I had thought that the WG decided this as part of the decision coming from issue-118, with new wording to replace 5.4 already drafted. No? 
>> 
>> (I hope so as I have been assuming this in the newer version of Semantics.)
>> 
>> Pat
>> 
>> On May 7, 2013, at 2:59 PM, David Wood wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> RDF Concepts [1] has been updated as required by my actions (this time correctly reflected):
>>> - ACTION-257
>>> - ACTION-258
>>> - ACTION-259
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Eric P. for instructing me in the wily ways of hg merging.
>>> 
>>> Changes in this version are available at [2].
>>> 
>>> There are still two open issues and an unimplemented resolution:
>>> 
>>> 1.  ISSUE: The Working Group intends to publish a Working Group Note detailing some of its efforts to define a formal semantics for RDF datasets. It should be referenced here when available. This is ACTION-209.  See [3].
>>> 
>>> The action is on Antoine.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2.  ISSUE: The Working Group intends to publish a separate Working Group Note entitled RDF 1.1 New Features and Migration Guide. This is ACTION-193. Some or all material in this section may be moved to that document. In the meantime, the Change Log is a good indication as to what else has changed and why.  See [4].
>>> 
>>> The action is on me.  I'll get to it as soon as I can, but suggest that this feature might be at risk unless I get a bit of help.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 3.  RESOLUTION: The WG resolved [5] to include a diagram [6], which has not been included.  Should we update it or include it?  It seems to me that we lost the symmetry when we decided not to pursue RDF Spaces as a concept and, failing to replace it with anything, we should not include the diagram.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Dave
>>> --
>>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>> 
>>> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html
>>> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#changes-wd3
>>> [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#entailment
>>> [4] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#changes
>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/meeting/2012-08-22#resolution_2
>>> [6] http://www.w3.org/2012/08/rdf-spaces-relationships.svg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On May 7, 2013, at 12:20, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I have updated Concepts in accordance with my actions:
>>>> - ACTION-257
>>>> - ACTION-288
>>>> - ACTION-289
>>>> …and also found some issues in the document that had been resolved but not reelected.  I'm pretty happy with the state of my copy.
>>>> 
>>>> However, I now see that there are multiple heads on the document (using 'hg heads') and I cannot merge.  An attempt to use 'hg log' did not go well.  I could use some help.
>>>> 
>>>> Can someone give me a hand with the merge?  Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Dave
>>>> --
>>>> http://about.me/david_wood
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
>> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
>> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
>> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>