- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:02:09 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Jun 26, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 06/25/2013 11:12 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: >> Who wrote this damn silly charter? > > Ivan served as editor, but what he wrote was all based on community input. See, for instance, the last row of: > http://www.w3.org/2010/06/rdf-work-items/table > ... which was only even polled because TimBL was pushing for it. > > I'm confident had we asked about blank-node-predicates, they would have garnered even more negative response. > > It's possible, of course, (1) that more informed debate would have changed people's positions, and that (2) time has changed people's positions. I think it would be quite reasonable to be laying the groundwork for RDF 1.2 or 2.0 which might chang this. That groundwork might include some non-normative text about "generalized RDF" or whatever, giving some convergence to people thinking in that direction. The main thing here would be understanding all the possible problems with this shift and how to mitigate them. One could make a Community Group now to begin gathering and documenting this understanding. I hate to tell you this, but it ought to be obvious. JSON-LD *is* RDF 2.0. If we don't do this now, all we will have done is changed the name of the standard and passed the baton to a group that has got more moxie than this one. Having one schlerotic committee form a committee to gather ideas from a community about how best to form a committee, etc., is not the best way to proceed when the world is changing at a revolutionary pace, and the necesary changes have been obvious for about a decade in any case. Pat > > -- Sandro > >> >> Pat >> >> On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:07 PM, David Wood wrote: >> >> >>> Yes, Antoine is right regardless of the state of JSON-LD. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Dave >>> -- >>> >>> http://about.me/david_wood >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2013, at 12:07, Antoine Zimmermann >>> <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Cf. RDF Working Group Charter, Section 3: >>>> >>>> """ >>>> 3. Out of Scope >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> Removing current restrictions in the RDF model (e.g., literals not allowed as subjects, or blank nodes as predicates) >>>> """ >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/rdf-wg-charter#outofscope >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> While we are proposing out of scope features, I suggest the following: >>>> >>>> <sarcasm> >>>> Proposal: subjects in RDF graphs can be literals. >>>> Explanation: this change is being made to improve cohesion in the RDF data model and to align with SPARQL, with OWL 2 RL rules, RIF, with practices in reasoners. >>>> Note: RDF Concepts will include warnings that use of literals for subjects will cause interoperability problems for a period of time, and that this extension is to be used only when necessary. >>>> </sarcasm> >>>> >>>> >>>> AZ. >>>> >>>> Le 25/06/2013 17:18, Peter Patel-Schneider a écrit : >>>> >>>>> There is an agenda on the web page but I don't see an email message. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would like to put discussion (and resolution) of blank nodes as >>>>> predicates onto the agenda. >>>>> >>>>> Proposal: Predicates in RDF graphs can be blank nodes. >>>>> Explanation: This change is being made to improve cohesion in the RDF >>>>> data model and to align with JSON-LD. >>>>> Note: RDF Concepts will include warnings that use of blank nodes for >>>>> predicates and for graph names will cause interoperability problems >>>>> for a period of time, and that these extensions are to be used only >>>>> when necessary. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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, 26 June 2013 15:02:51 UTC