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

Re: Fwd: Re: RDF Concepts - Definition of "Generalized RDF"

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:05:00 -0400
Message-ID: <5266860C.4090407@dbooth.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
CC: www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Hi Peter,

On 10/21/2013 06:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but apparently you missed my followup, as I didn't receive a 
response to that.  My followup was:
For concepts that are *used* then I would agree, but that concept is 
*not* used in the RDF Concepts spec.  The RDF Semantics spec uses other 
far more important concepts too, such as "denotes", but surely you would 
not advocate moving those definitions to the RDF Concepts document?

> 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.

And my followup said:
That's an interesting catch-22, because the JSON-LD *justification* for 
using the notion of generalized RDF was that it is defined in the RDF 
specs, so we seem to have a circular justification going on here.

In what sense do you view the Concepts document as being a better 
reference than the Semantics document?  Are you suggesting that the 
definition *should* have more prominence than it would get in the 
Semantics doc?  The problem with giving it more prominence is that 
people start to misconstrue it as being a W3C standard on par with 
standard RDF.  But generalized RDF has not gone through at all the same 
level of rigor as standardized RDF -- no test cases, no interoperable 
implementations, etc. -- and was not intended by the W3C to be promoted 
as a W3C standard.  The fact that JSON-LD references that definition is 
a bug, not a feature, IMO.

Bottom line: I'm not at all convinced by the rationale that I've heard 
so far, that the Concepts document is a better place for this definition 
than the Semantics document.  Is there more rationale that I've missed? 
  Or do you disagree with my points above?  If so, what and why?


> 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 Tuesday, 22 October 2013 14:05:38 UTC

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