W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2013

Re: Fwd: Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:48:13 -0400
Message-ID: <5265AF2D.1020608@gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Is this request supposed to be for me, or for the sender of the response?  I 
initially sent back a private response on this, but in the interests of time, 
I will answer with my personal feelings.

The introduction of generalized RDF is in Concepts because Concepts is where 
RDF concepts are to be introduced.   Generalized RDF was called out as a 
worthy RDF concept because JSON-LD needed something to point to for its 
generalization of RDF.

peter


On 10/16/2013 10:10 AM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> The wording of this definition looks good to me, but why are you opposed to 
> moving it to the RDF Semantics document?  AFAICT, the term is not used in 
> the RDF Concepts document, but it *is* used in the RDF Semantcs document.  
> Also, moving it to RDF Semantics would give it less visibility, which (to my 
> mind) would be appropriate given that standard RDF is what the W3C is 
> intending to promote, rather than generalized RDF.
>
> David
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"
> Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:11:52 +0000
> Resent-From: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:11:18 -0400
> From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> CC: RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
>
> Hi David,
>
> This is an official response from the RDF Working Group regarding your 
> comment at [1] on the definition of "Generalized RDF".  Your comment is 
> being tracked at our ISSUE-147 [2].
>
> The WG discussed your concerns at our 2 Oct telecon [3] and via email [4].  
> Those discussions resulted in a decision to leave the definition of 
> "generalized RDF" in RDF 1.1 Concepts, but to change the definition to the 
> following:
> [[
> Generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets differ from normative RDF 
> triples, graphs, and datasets only by allowing IRIs, blank
> nodes and literals to appear anywhere as subject, predicate, object or graph 
> name.
> ]]
>
> My action to make the editorial changes was tracked at [5].
>
> The updated section 7 is available in the current editors' draft [6].
>
> Please advise the working group whether this change is acceptable to you by 
> responding to this message.  Thank you for your participation.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> -- 
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0006.html
> [2] ISSUE-147: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147
> [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09#line0228
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0030.html
> [5] ACTION-309: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/309
> [6] 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-generalized-rdf
>
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 22:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:26 UTC