- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 13:23:02 +0200
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: public-rdf-comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Dear David, Thanks for your comment. We have raised an issue for tracking your comment [1]. We will get back to you on this. Best, Guus, on behalf of the RDF WG [1] https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147 On 02-10-13 04:34, 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. > > David >
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 11:23:33 UTC