- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 23:01:25 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
This all looks fine to me. Pat On Oct 9, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 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. > > 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 04:01:53 UTC