- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:01:51 -0500
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Hi Richard, On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:14:47PM +0000, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > But it would be great if the WG could say a bit more about > > this issue, somewhere other than in RDF Concepts, if only a paragraph or two > > drawing out a few key points from that long and, at times, insightful > > discussion. > > What I hear is a proposal that the WG do extra work for the benefit of those > members who don't care enough to participate in discussions or scour the > archives. Personally I have no interest in doing this work, although I > understand the benefit of doing it. I wouldn't put it that way. My point is not about explaining things for the benefit of WG members (though I agree that would help), but about reporting back to readers of RDF 1.1 the results of the effort to "standardize a model and semantics for multiple graphs and graphs stores" [1]. It would be a pity if the insights surfaced in that discussion were to remain buried in the list archives. > > If RDF Concepts has called them RDF Sources, those two paragraphs somewhere > > should say something about this choice of terms. Was it just a coin toss? > > It's a proposal. Nothing is decided. If the term is adopted, it will be with > the usual process: Someone proposed it, and no one hated it enough to > threaten a formal objection. I did not mean to imply that I think it is being decided by a coin toss but that the inquiring reader will want to know. My point was simply that once the terminology -- whatever it may be -- is fixed, the choice of terms be explained, somewhere, however minimally. And FWIW I have already said that "RDF Sources" is fine with me... Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02:02:23 UTC