- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 19:59:42 +0200
- To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- CC: <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Hi Jeremy, The WG discussed your response today. We're extremely sorry that we have not been able to get to consensus on this. At his point we see no alternative but to leave the situation unchanged. With respect to our time line: we expect to send the CR transition request on 23 Oct. There will be a time gap of at least one week between the request and the transition call with the director. We hope you understand our position. Thanks again for the trouble and time you've taken in reviewing our documents. Very best, Guus > Hi Peter > > thank you and the WG for the time spent considering my issue. > > I am sorry that you have failed to reach a satisfactory response, and understand the difficulties involved. > > My current intent is to raise a formal objection for consideration by the director during the transition review. > > I will be clear in that objection that I do not agree with Sandro > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0075.html > > that I am in a Solomon and the Baby situation, and that I do not believe it is best that the specification dies; however, I do believe that asking the director to consider whether asking the WG to actually resolve this issue is appropriate. > > I will be drafting the objection in the next 2 weeks: if the WG would like me to accelerate that process please let me know. > > Jeremy J Carroll > Principal Architect > Syapse, Inc. > > > > On Oct 11, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Jeremy: >> >> This is a second official response to your message about rdfs:Graph and >> RDF datasets, >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html, >> which is being tracked as ISSUE-142. >> >> The first official response from the working group was >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html >> which stated that the working group was unable to agree on any proposal >> for RDF datasets that goes beyond the very minimal proposal in its current >> documents. You responded, in >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0005.html, >> that you were not satisfied with this situation. >> >> The working group again discussed RDF datasets and was again unable to come >> up with any viable solution. The only resolution that was acceptable was a >> negative one - the RDF working group will leave further semantics of >> datasets and named graphs to some future working group. Hopefully at that >> time there will be one or more communities of practice using aspects of RDF >> datasets and named graphs that can be used as the starting point for >> portions of a W3C recommendation. >> >> The working group realizes that the current situation is not totally >> satisfactory to you, but the working group has expended a lot of effort on >> this topic already and has been unsuccessful. There are no forseeable >> possibilities of a breakthrough here and thus the working group will be >> concentrating its efforts in other areas so as to finish the work it needs >> to do. >> >> Please indicate whether you wish to pursue this issue further, or whether >> leaving the situation unchanged in this area is acceptable to you. Thank >> you for your concerns on this topic. >> >> Yours sincerely, >> Peter F. Patel-Schneider >> for the RDF Working Group
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 18:00:14 UTC