Re: status of Jeremy's main comments (ISSUE-142 and ISSUE-151) and two proposed responses

This all looks fine to me. 

Pat

On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Jeremy send in two messages to -comments on 11 July.  The first,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html,
> is now ISSUE-142 and is about named graphs and whether there is a way to get
> the name to denote the graph or even just a class rdfs:Graph, and alludes to
> ISSUE-35.  The second,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html,
> is now ISSUE-151 and is about owl:imports, and alludes to ISSUE-38.
> 
> 
> Status of ISSUE-142:
> 
> Pat sent a response for Jeremy's first message,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html,
> which Jeremey rejected, in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0005.html.
> 
> On October 2, the working group officially decided to not provide a
> semantics for datasets and named graphs
> https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02#resolution_2
> This does not mean that there will not be a note on datasets and named
> graphs, just that the REC-track documents won't define semantics in this
> area.
> 
> I took an action item to prepare a response to Jeremy (but messed up and
> thought that I was on the hook for Jeremy's other message).
> 
> Here is my proposed second response to Jeremy's first message:
> 
> Dear Jeremy:
> 
> This is a seccond official response to your message about rdfs:Graph and
> RDF datasets,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html,
> which is being tracked as ISSUE-142.
> 
> The first official response from the working group was
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html
> which stated that the working group was unable to agree on any proposal
> for RDF datasets that goes beyond the very minimal proposal in its current
> documents.   You responded, in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0005.html,
> that you were not satisfied with this situation.
> 
> The working group again discussed RDF datasets and was again unable to come
> up with any viable solution.  The only resolution that was acceptable was a
> negative one - that the RDF working group will leave further semantics of
> datasets and named graphs to some future working group.  Hopefully at that
> time there will be one or more communities of practice using aspects of RDF
> datasets and named graphs that can be used as the starting point for
> portions of a W3C recomomendation.
> 
> The working group realizes that the current situation is not totally
> satisfactory to you, but the working group has expended a lot of effort on
> this topic already and has been unsuccessful.  There are no forseeable
> possibilities of a breakthrough here and thus the working group will be
> concentrating its efforts in other areas so as to finish the work it needs
> to do.
> 
> Please indicate whether you wish to pursue this issue further, or whether
> leaving the situation unchanged in this area is acceptable to you. Thank
> you for your concerns on this topic.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> for the RDF Working Group
> 
> 
> Status of ISSUE-151:
> 
> I believe that Jeremy's second message is all about owl:imports, and thus
> that the RDF working group should not be making any change in response to
> this message.  I proposed a response in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0097.html
> stating this and suggesting to Jeremy that if there is something else in
> this second message that is in the purview of the RDF working group he is
> welcome to raise it.
> 
> 
> Here is a slightly edited version of my proposed response:
> 
> Hi Jeremy:
> 
> This is an official response to your message about owl:imports and graph
> names and issue 38,
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html,
> which is being tracked as ISSUE-151.
> 
> The practice that you illustrate concerns the OWL vocabulary for describing
> and combining ontologies.  These facilities form a core portion of the W3C
> OWL Web Ontology Language and are thus outside the scope of the RDF Working
> Group.  The working group will thus not be addressing this issue. You may
> wish to officially raise this issue against OWL, to be considered the next
> time that OWL is updated.
> 
> If you feel that there is a related issue that within the scope of the RDF
> Working Group, feel free to raise it.
> 
> Yours sincerely,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> for the W3C RDF Working Group
> 
> 
> 
> 
> peter
> 
> 
> 

------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St.            (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile (preferred)
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes

Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 04:01:53 UTC