Hi David, Just in case you wanted a response from me, I am in agreement with Peter.
Regards, Dave -- http://about.me/david_wood On Oct 21, 2013, at 18:48, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschnei...@gmail.com> 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. > > 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 >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
