I think my view is that the smallest amount of normative change to the text that actually addresses my comment would be:
1: change in semantics concerning having interpretations that conform with the named graph mapping of a dataset 2: change in semantics giving MAY or SHOULD or MUST force to 1 3: small consequential changes to concepts I will suggest text later today Jeremy J Carroll Principal Architect Syapse, Inc. On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Sandro Hawke <san...@w3.org> wrote: > As Guus mentioned, we're out of time. > > At this point I'm really liking Pat's plan [1] to leverage the term "RDF > Source" [2] to address the kinds of use cases we've been talking about, and > write a WG Note to explain how to do it and define a class of Datasets (or > Dataset Sources?) that are snapshots of sources. > > Given the discussions we've had, is there an alternative design that you > think is significantly better, that you'd like the WG to consider as an > alternative path forward at tomorrow's meeting? > > -- Sandro > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Sep/0148 > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#change-over-time
