Re: [closing?] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"

It appears to me that social meaning is no longer an issue in RDF
Concepts.

As far as I can tell, the only remnants of the social meaning issues that
remain in the RDF documents are in RDF Schema, and that is the subject of
another comment.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies


From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Subject: [closing?] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 16:21:04 +0100

> Peter,
> 
> Further to your comment, recorded against the RDF Concepts document:
>    http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14
> and your earlier response (below):
> 
> The RDF Concepts editors' draft [1] is now in what we believe to be a 
> near-final form.    The full list of changes to RDF Concepts in response to 
> this comment is listed in appendix A.1:
> [[
> Deleted section 4 about social meaning. cf msg from meeting at tech 
> plenary. Also removed previous section 2.2.8 ("A Basis for Binding 
> Agreements") as this also related to social meaning. Also: removed mention 
> in section 3.3. Datatypes about the defining authority of a datatype URI. 
> Small consequential changes in abstract and introduction and bulleted list 
> at start of section 2.2. Consequential deletion of [HTTP] and [URI-REG] 
> references.
> ]]
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/
> 
> Can you please indicate, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, whether or not 
> the noted changes in this document have addressed the issue to your 
> satisfaction.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> At 07:37 14/03/03 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
> >Subject: [closed] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"
> >Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:57:31 +0000
> >
> > > Subject: [closed] pfps-14 "Social Meaning and RDF"
> > >
> > > You raised made a last call comment [pfps-14] captured in:
> > >
> > >     http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-14
> > >
> > > The RDFCore WG has resolved:
> > >
> > >     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0068.html
> > >
> > > to accept this comment,
> > >
> > > by removing the section on social meaning from the Concepts document,
> > > per WG proposal:
> > >
> > >     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0029.html
> > >
> > > Please reply to this email, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org indicating
> > > whether this decision is acceptable.
> >
> >Hmm.  I don't view this as a comprehensive response to my comments on this
> >issue.
> >
> >I particular my message referenced in the issue list doesn't even mention
> >the section on social meaning.
> >
> >I await identification of other changes that may be done in response to
> >this comment.
> >
> > > Thank you for your attention,
> > >
> > > #g
> >
> >
> >peter
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E

Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2003 09:49:09 UTC