- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:31:26 -0500
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 19, 2013, at 11:26 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > One way to move forward on the union vs merge front is to not define > entailment for sets of RDF graphs. If one has a set of RDF graphs, > then one has to first either union or merge them. > > There would need to be changes in several places in RDF Semantics. I > don't think that these changes would be substantive (but they might be > substantial). No changes should be needed in any other document, > which shows just how much importance this issue has. (Yes, I've > checked RDF Concepts, which is the only place where there might have > been required changes.) > > I'm willing to go through and document the changes required, and > determine whether there is any substantive change required, *provided > that the interested parties agree that this change is an acceptable > solution to the issue*. > > > I hereby state that I agree that removing entailment for sets of RDF > graphs is an acceptable solution to the issue. I am cool with that, though I prefer the current treatment using the notion of "unionizing" (Terminology can be changed if required.) Look at the latest draft. Pat > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 19 June 2013 17:31:52 UTC