status of Jeremy's main comments (ISSUE-142 and ISSUE-151) and two proposed responses

Jeremy send in two messages to -comments on 11 July.  The first,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html,
is now ISSUE-142 and is about named graphs and whether there is a way to get
the name to denote the graph or even just a class rdfs:Graph, and alludes to
ISSUE-35.  The second,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html,
is now ISSUE-151 and is about owl:imports, and alludes to ISSUE-38.


Status of ISSUE-142:

Pat sent a response for Jeremy's first message,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html,
which Jeremey rejected, in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0005.html.

On October 2, the working group officially decided to not provide a
semantics for datasets and named graphs
https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-02#resolution_2
This does not mean that there will not be a note on datasets and named
graphs, just that the REC-track documents won't define semantics in this
area.

I took an action item to prepare a response to Jeremy (but messed up and
thought that I was on the hook for Jeremy's other message).

Here is my proposed second response to Jeremy's first message:

Dear Jeremy:

This is a seccond official response to your message about rdfs:Graph and
RDF datasets,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0021.html,
which is being tracked as ISSUE-142.

The first official response from the working group was
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html
which stated that the working group was unable to agree on any proposal
for RDF datasets that goes beyond the very minimal proposal in its current
documents.   You responded, in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0005.html,
that you were not satisfied with this situation.

The working group again discussed RDF datasets and was again unable to come
up with any viable solution.  The only resolution that was acceptable was a
negative one - that the RDF working group will leave further semantics of
datasets and named graphs to some future working group.  Hopefully at that
time there will be one or more communities of practice using aspects of RDF
datasets and named graphs that can be used as the starting point for
portions of a W3C recomomendation.

The working group realizes that the current situation is not totally
satisfactory to you, but the working group has expended a lot of effort on
this topic already and has been unsuccessful.  There are no forseeable
possibilities of a breakthrough here and thus the working group will be
concentrating its efforts in other areas so as to finish the work it needs
to do.

Please indicate whether you wish to pursue this issue further, or whether
leaving the situation unchanged in this area is acceptable to you. Thank
you for your concerns on this topic.

Yours sincerely,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
for the RDF Working Group


Status of ISSUE-151:

I believe that Jeremy's second message is all about owl:imports, and thus
that the RDF working group should not be making any change in response to
this message.  I proposed a response in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0097.html
stating this and suggesting to Jeremy that if there is something else in
this second message that is in the purview of the RDF working group he is
welcome to raise it.


Here is a slightly edited version of my proposed response:

Hi Jeremy:

This is an official response to your message about owl:imports and graph
names and issue 38,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html,
which is being tracked as ISSUE-151.

The practice that you illustrate concerns the OWL vocabulary for describing
and combining ontologies.  These facilities form a core portion of the W3C
OWL Web Ontology Language and are thus outside the scope of the RDF Working
Group.  The working group will thus not be addressing this issue. You may
wish to officially raise this issue against OWL, to be considered the next
time that OWL is updated.

If you feel that there is a related issue that within the scope of the RDF
Working Group, feel free to raise it.

Yours sincerely,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
for the W3C RDF Working Group




peter

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 17:34:04 UTC