- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 23:49:13 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
On 10/22/2013 08:26 PM, Pat Hayes wrote: > David, a quick response to correct a misapprehension. See inline > below. > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:05 AM, David Booth wrote: > >> 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. > > No, the reason for JSON-LD using a generalization of RDF syntax is > quite external to the RDF specs, and has its roots in the JSON > community itself. So this is not a catch-22, as you put it, but a > small gesture of conciliation between RDF and JSON-LD, which are like > two musicians playing the same tune but each insisting that their > version was written by a different composer. I understand that the *motivation* for using generalized RDF had nothing to do with the existence of the definition in the RDF specs. But i distinctly remember the existence of the definition in the RDF specs as being used as a justification for going ahead with the blank-nodes-as-predicates feature in JSON-LD, rather than finding another solution in spite of the motivation. I don't know how easily i could find the messages or phone log to prove that, but i was quite heavily involved in those discussions at that time and i distinctly remember that point standing out in my mind at the time. David > > Pat Hayes > >> >> 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? >> >> David >> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Wednesday, 23 October 2013 03:49:42 UTC