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: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:42:32 -0400
Message-ID: <52580048.1010705@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 10/10/2013 09:12 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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?
>

It turns out we're chair impaired for a few days.   It seems clear to me 
that this email reflects the WG decisions and is worded in a way that 
the group is comfortable with, so please go ahead and send it as an 
official response.

           -- Sandro

> 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 Friday, 11 October 2013 13:42:41 UTC

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