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: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:46:56 +0200
Message-ID: <52580150.9020101@vu.nl>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Just been reading all these mails. Sending is definitely fine with me.
Guus


On 11-10-13 15:42, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 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 13:47:18 UTC

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