- From: Gregory Williams <greg@evilfunhouse.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 14:04:00 -0400
- To: Chimezie Ogbuji <ogbujic@ccf.org>
- Cc: "SPARQL Working Group WG" <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On May 18, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > FYI, I would feel better about addressing Kjetil's comment [1] on this if I > had a sense of where others felt about this issue and gave clarification > regarding W3C procedure (discussed below). I don't feel like my response > would represent a consensus otherwise without some feedback regarding the > email below. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2010Apr/0001.html I think that we should consider http-range-14 as normative, but I think your changes to the wording clear the issue up. Basically, that we never talk directly about a graph, but only "networked RDF knowledge". I think its still a bit confusing that "graph URI" is used as shorthand for the networked RDF knowledge, but that's an existing problem in previous specs, so perhaps hard to fix at this point. .greg
Received on Thursday, 20 May 2010 18:04:36 UTC