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.
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.
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-comme...@w3.org
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:11:18 -0400
From: David Wood <da...@3roundstones.com>
To: David Booth <da...@dbooth.org>
CC: RDF Comments <public-rdf-comme...@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
