Fwd: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"

Forwarded to public-ref-comments for archiving.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood



Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
> Subject: Fwd: Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"
> Date: October 16, 2013 10:10:26 EDT
> To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
> Cc: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
> 
> 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
>