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

Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:44:33 -0400
Message-ID: <52680B01.6070304@dbooth.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Thanks Pat.  I'll reply to the comments list so that you can close this 
issue.

David

On 10/23/2013 10:58 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>
> On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:02 PM, David Booth wrote:
>
>> Well, Peter replied off list to me, ignoring my questions and
>> essentially saying that he didn't think that this discussion was
>> going anywhere good and suggesting that the WG simply vote on it.
>> So that wasn't helpful at all.  :(
>
> That was very helpful. Right now, the WG is under extreme pressure to
> get the documents finalized. Niggling over trivial stylistic or
> editorial details is neither useful nor appropriate.
>
>> Can anyone else fill in more rationale for keeping this definition
>> in the Concepts spec instead of moving it to the Semantics spec
>> where it is actually *used*?
>
> As has already been pointed out, the rationale is that Concepts is
> the document which defines the basic ideas, and this is a basic idea.
> A similar rationale was used to put other definitions into Concepts.
> Perhaps you do not find this rationale persuasive, but it is the
> rationale that was in fact used, so it is the answer to your
> question.
>
> Pat
>
>>
>> This isn't a big enough issue that I would file a formal objection
>> over it, but it is rather annoying to be summarily dissed instead
>> of just answering the damn questions and stating the actual
>> rationale.
>>
>> thanks, David
>>
>> On 10/22/2013 10:05 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> On 10/21/2013 06:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 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.
>>>
>>> Yes, but apparently you missed my followup, as I didn't receive
>>> a response to that.  My followup was: [[ For concepts that are
>>> *used* then I would agree, but that concept is *not* used in the
>>> RDF Concepts spec.  The RDF Semantics spec uses other far more
>>> important concepts too, such as "denotes", but surely you would
>>> not advocate moving those definitions to the RDF Concepts
>>> document? ]]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> And my followup said: [[ That's an interesting catch-22, because
>>> the JSON-LD *justification* for using the notion of generalized
>>> RDF was that it is defined in the RDF specs, so we seem to have a
>>> circular justification going on here.
>>>
>>> In what sense do you view the Concepts document as being a
>>> better reference than the Semantics document?  Are you suggesting
>>> that the definition *should* have more prominence than it would
>>> get in the Semantics doc?  The problem with giving it more
>>> prominence is that people start to misconstrue it as being a W3C
>>> standard on par with standard RDF.  But generalized RDF has not
>>> gone through at all the same level of rigor as standardized RDF
>>> -- no test cases, no interoperable implementations, etc. -- and
>>> was not intended by the W3C to be promoted as a W3C standard.
>>> The fact that JSON-LD references that definition is a bug, not a
>>> feature, IMO. ]]
>>>
>>> Bottom line: I'm not at all convinced by the rationale that I've
>>> heard so far, that the Concepts document is a better place for
>>> this definition than the Semantics document.  Is there more
>>> rationale that I've missed? Or do you disagree with my points
>>> above?  If so, what and why?
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>>>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:45:02 UTC

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