W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: [closed] pfps-15 Say anything quote

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:42:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030319.164253.108948925.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: fmanola@mitre.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [closed] pfps-15 Say anything quote
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 16:20:06 +0000

> At 13:39 17/03/2003 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >I believe that this response does not address all of my comments in the
> >referenced email message.  Note in particular that several of the quotes I
> >used in my messages do not come from Primer.
> 
> Peter,
> 
> I'd like to point out that the WG's response, conveyed to you by Frank, was 
> to the issue the WG recorded, as noted in:
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0292.html
> 
> [[
> We need to be clear about what the issue is that we are identifying.
> 
> The issue
> 
>     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15
> 
> concerns the sentence in the primer:
>
> [[
> These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of
> the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about
> existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98].
> ]]
> 
> which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be
> serialized in RDF/XML.
> 
>     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0194.html
> 
> Frank has suggested editorial rewording that is not acceptable to Peter.
> 
> This is not an issue of general applicability'.
> ]]
> 
> Does the WG's decision resolve THIS ISSUE to your satisfaction?
> 
> Brian

I have never indicated that my comment ``Can RDF say anything about
anything?'' was solely concerned with the RDF Primer.  My first message in
this thread, archived at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0148.html, 
has one quote from the Primer and two from Concepts.  The first response,
from you, archived at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0165.html, 
states, in part, ``As this comment affects several documents, I'll
respond.''  My response, archived at 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0175.html, 
further brings in the RDF Syntax document.

The message that I received, accepting the comment as an issue, indicates
that the remedy that the RDF Core WG has decided on would consist of
letting the RDF Primer editor suggest a change to the RDF Primer.  I
believe that this response does not address the entirety of my comment.  I
am unaware of any other efforts that the RDF Core WG will be undertaking to
address the rest of my comment.  Therefore I have indicated that I believe
that the response does not address my comment to my satisfaction, and,
moreover, have provided one reason why.

I am unaware of any part of the W3C process that requires me to measure the
acceptability of the response by a characterisation of my comments
determined by the RDF Core WG.  The RDF Core WG is, of course, free to make
their own determination of what I meant in my comments, and respond using
this determination, but I think that I am free to differ.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies
 
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:44:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT