- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:02:33 +0100
- To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 13-12-13 16:59, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: > I would like to have RDF 1.1 at the beginning, like the other documents, > I'd like that "RDF Datasets" stays like this, and we can put something > like "Discussion" in it, to show it's not only providing just one solution. > > "RDF 1.1: A Discussion of the Semantics of RDF Datasets" Descriptive but a bit long. What about: RDF 1.1: On Semanitcs of RDF Datasets Guus > > > AZ. > > Le 13/12/2013 13:34, Markus Lanthaler a écrit : >> On Friday, December 13, 2013 12:05 PM, Antoine Zimmermann wrote: >>> Le 13/12/2013 11:29, Guus Schreiber a écrit : >>>> The ED is, in my opnion, in a state that merits publication as first >>>> public working draft. I PROPOSE that, unless someone objects within >>> the >>>> next two days, we publish on Tuesday (last chance before the >>> publication >>>> moratorium). No reply will be interpreted as consent. Remember: for >>> FPWD >>>> you don't have to agree with everything in there. If you have a >>> comment >>>> you might want to ask Antoine to put in an ISSUE note. >>> >>> +1 >> >> +1 >> >>>> Antoine: pls change the shortname to "rdf11-datasets". >>> >>> And maybe the title to "RDF 1.1 Datasets Semantics" (although "RDF >>> Dataset" is the concept to which the semantics is applied). >> >> Could we add "Discussion" or "Potential" or something similar to indicate >> that this document doesn't define the one and only dataset semantics but >> discusses multiple options. So, something like "Discussion of RDF 1.1 >> Dataset Semantics". >> >> >> Cheers, >> Markus >> >> >> -- >> Markus Lanthaler >> @markuslanthaler >> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 13:03:05 UTC