- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:08:51 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F0A0A58C-392C-48D3-8BFA-6F2C4D69BE5B@w3.org>
Same here Ivan On Oct 10, 2013, at 06:01 , Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2013 13:09:23 UTC