- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:57:16 -0400
- To: Jeremy J Carroll <jjc@syapse.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, team-rdf-chairs@w3.org
On 10/01/2013 02:16 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote:
> 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
Thanks. Personally, I strongly suggest you avoid use of the term
"named graph" in the text, given apparent disagreement about what it means.
-- Sandro
>
>
>
> 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 18:57:25 UTC