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

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>

I also sent an official response which was rejected.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html

Otherwise, this seems fine.

    - Sandro

>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

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 22:09:24 UTC