- From: James Anderson <anderson.james.1955@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 16:25:58 +0100
- To: RDF-star Working Group <public-rdf-star-wg@w3.org>
good afternoon; do not any of the documents which involve information at remote locations introduce risks which are not inherent in rdf as a representation? that would include the protocol documents, sparql service locations and load operations, json-ld remote contexts, but nothing in rdf-star itself. > On 7. Feb 2025, at 15:52, Lassila, Ora <ora@amazon.com> wrote: > > I am not sure exactly how to word things, but I think I would prefer those documents to say "no issues" *and* point to Concepts (?) assuming it has a statement that covers essentially all of RDF. Having said that, makes me think if it would be possible to have a P&S statement *only* in Concepts and have all other documents point to it? > > Ora > > > On 2/6/25, 2:01 PM, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > We are supposed to have P&S sections in each document, I guess. > > > What should do into document that have no P&S issues beyond what is inherent > in RDF? Should they point to Concepts? If so, how? Or should they just say > "no issues"? If so, how? > > > peter > > > > > --- james anderson | james@dydra.com | https://dydra.com
Received on Friday, 7 February 2025 15:26:15 UTC