- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:44:33 -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>
Thanks Pat. I'll reply to the comments list so that you can close this issue. David On 10/23/2013 10:58 AM, Pat Hayes wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:02 PM, David Booth wrote: > >> Well, Peter replied off list to me, ignoring my questions and >> essentially saying that he didn't think that this discussion was >> going anywhere good and suggesting that the WG simply vote on it. >> So that wasn't helpful at all. :( > > That was very helpful. Right now, the WG is under extreme pressure to > get the documents finalized. Niggling over trivial stylistic or > editorial details is neither useful nor appropriate. > >> Can anyone else fill in more rationale for keeping this definition >> in the Concepts spec instead of moving it to the Semantics spec >> where it is actually *used*? > > As has already been pointed out, the rationale is that Concepts is > the document which defines the basic ideas, and this is a basic idea. > A similar rationale was used to put other definitions into Concepts. > Perhaps you do not find this rationale persuasive, but it is the > rationale that was in fact used, so it is the answer to your > question. > > Pat > >> >> This isn't a big enough issue that I would file a formal objection >> over it, but it is rather annoying to be summarily dissed instead >> of just answering the damn questions and stating the actual >> rationale. >> >> thanks, David >> >> On 10/22/2013 10:05 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. >>> >>> 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 17:45:02 UTC