- From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:34:37 +0200
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
At first sight, I find this solution to be a good compromise. Since I know the content of the documents pretty well, I am pretty sure that it does not require substantial changes. Thank you to have taken my concerns in consideration. AZ Le 19/06/2013 18:26, Peter Patel-Schneider a écrit : > 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. > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > Nuance Communications > > -- Antoine Zimmermann ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne 158 cours Fauriel 42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2 France Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03 Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66 http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 19:34:58 UTC