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

Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 07:16:18 -0400
Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Message-Id: <467141A7-D72F-45D2-88D9-A3C949770063@3roundstones.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Hi David,

Just in case you wanted a response from me, I am in agreement with Peter.

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



On Oct 21, 2013, at 18:48, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 22 October 2013 11:16:42 UTC

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