W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2013

Re: rdf comments

From: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 11:16:48 -0700
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
Message-Id: <C1E24A9D-83C2-44B4-96AA-622E86FAE390@syapse.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>

I think my view is that the smallest amount of normative change to the text that actually addresses my comment would be:

1: change in semantics concerning having interpretations that conform with the named graph mapping of a dataset
2: change in semantics giving MAY or SHOULD or MUST force to 1
3: small consequential changes to concepts

I will suggest text later today

Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.

On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:

> As Guus mentioned, we're out of time.
> At this point I'm really liking Pat's plan [1] to leverage the term "RDF Source" [2] to address the kinds of use cases we've been talking about, and write a WG Note to explain how to do it and define a class of Datasets (or Dataset Sources?) that are snapshots of sources.
> Given the discussions we've had, is there an alternative design that you think is significantly better, that you'd like the WG to consider as an alternative path forward at tomorrow's meeting?
>      -- Sandro
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0148
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#change-over-time
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 18:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:34:52 UTC