- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:57:33 -0400
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
This change is acceptable to me. thanks, David On 10/16/2013 09:11 AM, David Wood wrote: > 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 >
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 17:58:01 UTC