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

So should these responses be sent out shortly (i.e., Friday afternoon, to 
allow more time for vetoes) or should they wait for chair approval or even WG 
approval next week?

peter

On 10/10/2013 06:08 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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:
>>>
>>> Sandro [was 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 13:13:22 UTC