Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF" (ISSUE-147)

Dear David,

Thanks for your comment. We have raised an issue for tracking your 
comment [1]. We will get back to you on this.

Guus, on behalf of the RDF WG


On 02-10-13 04:34, David Booth wrote:
> Regarding section 7
> It does not look like my comments about Generalized RDF were addressed:
> [[
> 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