- From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 20:27:52 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMpDgVxB=Pxm+nXsW_GpL1uNgh9j3JpBd785LqdeR5RLEB1XPg@mail.gmail.com>
Because Jeremy's comment uses the OWL vocabulary, and particularly because it uses owl:imports, the RDF Working Group should not be even considering making any changes to RDF in response to the comment. It is the business of some future W3C working group on OWL to determine whether owl:imports can be reasonably extended to RDF datasets, and definitely not the business of the RDF working group. If Jeremy wants to provide some "common practice" where there is inter-graph inference going on in RDF datasets that does not involve vocabulary that is none of the RDF Working Group's business, then let him bring that forward in a continuation of this comment (which we should then consider as if it was brought forward during the LC period). peter On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Peter Patel-Schneider wrote: > > > Here is my proposed response to > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Jul/0022.html > > > > Comments? > > I dont think this is an adequate response. Jeremy's point is that there > are common uses of datasets which rely on the presumption that the IRI > naming a graph will denote the graph when used inside RDF, and our current > specifications do not support this presumption, so that such uses will be > at risk. The particular example he gives uses owl vocabulary, but the point > applies to the semantics (or lack of semantics) of datasets, which is > within our ambit. > > Pat > > > > > peter > > > > > > > > Dear Jeremy: > > > > Even if it may be common to have RDF datasets that include owl:Ontology > and > > owl:imports, RDF itself has nothing to say about their use or meaning, > nor > > should it. Therefore, the RDF WG will not make any change to its > documents > > in response to this particular comment. > > > > If you feel that this is not a satisfactory resolution, please let us > know. > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2013 03:28:19 UTC