On Sep 25, 2013, at 10:56 PM, David Booth wrote:
Hi Pat,
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this with me, and sorry for the slow
response. Lots of other things going on right now.
My goal in this discussion is to reach common understanding to allow the
wording in the RDF specs to
On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
On 09/20/2013 04:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
So, I hereby propose we give up on all this until after we solve the
change-over-time problem for RDF.
Well, I do have other things to
I feel that Sandro's text has asked the WG for too much and is motivated by the
insoluble use case of dealing with time.
A shorter proposal, motivated by other intensional use cases, such as Pat's
signing, but any involving stating some intent about a graph, rather than some
mathematical
Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Sep 24, 2013, at 8:31 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
On 09/20/2013 04:44 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Sep 19, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
So, I hereby propose we give up on all this until after we solve
the change-over-time problem for RDF.
Jeremy J Carroll j...@syapse.com wrote:
I feel that Sandro's text has asked the WG for too much and is
motivated by the insoluble use case of dealing with time.
A shorter proposal, motivated by other intensional use cases, such as
Pat's signing, but any involving stating some intent about a
I also wish to use dcterms:issued
Adam and Bettie issued the graph for different purposes on different dates, and
the issued property is really about the named graph and not about the graph per
se.
Jeremy J Carroll
Principal Architect
Syapse, Inc.
On Sep 27, 2013, at 2:34 PM, Sandro Hawke
Jeremy J Carroll j...@syapse.com wrote:
I also wish to use dcterms:issued
Adam and Bettie issued the graph for different purposes on different
dates, and the issued property is really about the named graph and not
about the graph per se.
Okay, so it's enough to use creator and date. Adam
