- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:26:56 -0400
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
+1 to Richard's restatement of the resolution.
peter
On 05/23/2012 08:19 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 12:27:41 UTC