- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 23:08:12 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <524B8E1C.6030306@w3.org>
On 10/01/2013 10:34 PM, David Booth wrote: > Regarding section 7 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130723/#section-generalized-rdf > > > It does not look like my comments about Generalized RDF were addressed: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0008.html > [[ > I think the most appropriate place for the definition of "generalized > RDF" would be in the RDF Semantics document, for two reasons: (a) that's > where the notion is actually used (to simplify entailment rules); and > (b) that would give it less prominence and hence reduce the likelihood > that someone would think it is a form of standard RDF. > ]] > > Also, I still think it needs a stronger warning that generalized RDF > is non-standard. > > Also, in Section 7 "A generalized RDF graph is an RDF graph" should be > "A generalized RDF graph is a graph", because the whole point is that > a *generalized* RDF graph is *not* necessarily a conforming RDF graph. > Please note that your comment then, on 4 August 2013, was on the 23 July draft: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-rdf11-concepts-20130723/ RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax W3C Last Call Working Draft 23 July 2013 and that's still the most recent draft for public review. -- Sandro > David > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 03:08:20 UTC