ISSUE-28 (was: Re: Draft agenda / final one in a few hours late)

Pat,

On 23 May 2012, at 02:02, Pat Hayes wrote:
> My votes on proposed resolutoins for issues 5, 29, 30 and 33 are +1, and my vote on the resolution for issue-28 is +1, provided that the WG accepts that this resolution has the consequence that we MUST give a semantics to datasets which ensures that the name of a named graph actually does denote the graph, in the 2004 Semantics sense of "denote". Without this acceptance, I formally vote against this resolution for issue 28. 

Let me propose a different wording for the ISSUE-28 resolution then:

[[
PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-28 ("Do we need syntactic nesting of graphs (g-texts) as in N3?"), saying No, we do not -- the use cases presented to the WG can be addressed without, and making syntactic nesting pay off would require additional logic machinery that's beyond this WG's scope.
]]

The point being that nesting may be a great enabler for things like N3 rules or your RDF Surfaces proposal, but are not really worth it unless we also get N3's @forall or your negative surfaces, and I think it's clear that this WG cannot do that. So no need to complicate our current job by writing nested graphs into the standard now.

Richard




> 
> Pat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2012, at 11:08 AM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> There is draft agenda containing the left overs from last week:
>> 
>>   http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.23
>> 
>> but I will update this with a few more items later today.
>> 
>> 
>> Guus
>> 
>> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   
> 40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 12:20:35 UTC