- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:48:13 -0400
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Is this request supposed to be for me, or for the sender of the response? I initially sent back a private response on this, but in the interests of time, I will answer with my personal feelings. The introduction of generalized RDF is in Concepts because Concepts is where RDF concepts are to be introduced. Generalized RDF was called out as a worthy RDF concept because JSON-LD needed something to point to for its generalization of RDF. peter On 10/16/2013 10:10 AM, David Booth wrote: > Hi Peter, > > The wording of this definition looks good to me, but why are you opposed to > moving it to the RDF Semantics document? AFAICT, the term is not used in > the RDF Concepts document, but it *is* used in the RDF Semantcs document. > Also, moving it to RDF Semantics would give it less visibility, which (to my > mind) would be appropriate given that standard RDF is what the W3C is > intending to promote, rather than generalized RDF. > > David > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF" > Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:11:52 +0000 > Resent-From: public-rdf-comments@w3.org > Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:11:18 -0400 > From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com> > To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> > CC: RDF Comments <public-rdf-comments@w3.org> > > Hi David, > > This is an official response from the RDF Working Group regarding your > comment at [1] on the definition of "Generalized RDF". Your comment is > being tracked at our ISSUE-147 [2]. > > The WG discussed your concerns at our 2 Oct telecon [3] and via email [4]. > Those discussions resulted in a decision to leave the definition of > "generalized RDF" in RDF 1.1 Concepts, but to change the definition to the > following: > [[ > Generalized RDF triples, graphs, and datasets differ from normative RDF > triples, graphs, and datasets only by allowing IRIs, blank > nodes and literals to appear anywhere as subject, predicate, object or graph > name. > ]] > > My action to make the editorial changes was tracked at [5]. > > The updated section 7 is available in the current editors' draft [6]. > > Please advise the working group whether this change is acceptable to you by > responding to this message. Thank you for your participation. > > Regards, > Dave > -- > http://about.me/david_wood > > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0006.html > [2] ISSUE-147: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/147 > [3] https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/rdf-wg/2013-10-09#line0228 > [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Oct/0030.html > [5] ACTION-309: https://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/actions/309 > [6] > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-generalized-rdf >
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 22:49:19 UTC