Fwd: Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159)

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Your comments on RDFConcepts & Semantics (ISSUE-145, 
ISSUE-147, ISSUE-148, ISSUE-159)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:40:38 -0400
From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
CC: public-rdf-comments@w3.org Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Hi Guus,

On 10/16/2013 12:54 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks again for taking the time to review our specs and sending comments.
>
> Given the timeline of the WG we would like to move forward, if possible.
> We would be obliged if you could indicate whether you can live with the
> responses we sent you w.r.t   the following four issues:
>
>    ISSUE-145 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/145):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0027.html

I have not had time to adequately study the rationale for the
identify-versus-denote distinction that Pat Hayes gave regarding
datatypes.  Nonetheless, I think it is unlikely that this issue by
itself would seem important enough to me to file a formal objection.
However, in some sense this issue is merely a part of a larger iceberg
that I am still discussing with Pat Hayes on the www-archive@w3.org
list, in this thread:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0034.html
So in that sense, I think it would make sense for the fate of this issue
to track the fate of that larger issue (probably under ISSUE-148).

>
>    ISSUE-147 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0046.html

ISSUE-147 is close to being satisfactory.  I am awaiting a response from
Peter Patel-Schneider:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0026.html
(Hmm, that's not the latest email we exchanged, so it looks like part of
our conversation inadvertently went off list.)  However, I anticipate
that this will be resolved satisfactorily, i.e., I do not expect it to
lead to a formal objection.

>
>    ISSUE-148 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/148):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0029.html

ISSUE-148 is very important to me, and I have been discussing the
iceberg that underlies it, with Pat Hayes:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Oct/0034.html
I hope that we will be able to craft wording that will be acceptable to
all, so that a formal objection can be avoided, but it is not assured.

>
>    ISSUE-159 (https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/159):
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0044.html

ISSUE-159 is almost satisfactory.  I emailed Pat Hayes off list about
this, and have not yet seen a response:
[[
[Off list]

Hi Pat,

That looks good except that the font on the word "interpretation" is
wrong: it is not appearing in bold as other defined terms appear when
they are introduced.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-mt/index.html#notation-and-terminology

Could you please fix that so that I can send back my official response
saying that I am happy with this resolution?

Thanks,
David
]]

>
> It is not our intention to hasten you, but it would really be helpful if
> you can send a reply before next Tuesday.
>
> Thanks a lot in advance for considering this,
> Guus

Thank you!
David

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 21:26:31 UTC