W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > October 2013

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:08:51 +0200
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F0A0A58C-392C-48D3-8BFA-6F2C4D69BE5B@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:17 UTC