David, a quick response to correct a misapprehension. See inline below. On Oct 22, 2013, at 9:05 AM, David Booth wrote:
> Hi Peter, > > On 10/21/2013 06:48 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider 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. > > Yes, but apparently you missed my followup, as I didn't receive a response to > that. My followup was: > [[ > For concepts that are *used* then I would agree, but that concept is *not* > used in the RDF Concepts spec. The RDF Semantics spec uses other far more > important concepts too, such as "denotes", but surely you would not advocate > moving those definitions to the RDF Concepts document? > ]] > >> >> 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. > > And my followup said: > [[ > That's an interesting catch-22, because the JSON-LD *justification* for using > the notion of generalized RDF was that it is defined in the RDF specs, so we > seem to have a circular justification going on here. No, the reason for JSON-LD using a generalization of RDF syntax is quite external to the RDF specs, and has its roots in the JSON community itself. So this is not a catch-22, as you put it, but a small gesture of conciliation between RDF and JSON-LD, which are like two musicians playing the same tune but each insisting that their version was written by a different composer. Pat Hayes > > In what sense do you view the Concepts document as being a better reference > than the Semantics document? Are you suggesting that the definition *should* > have more prominence than it would get in the Semantics doc? The problem > with giving it more prominence is that people start to misconstrue it as > being a W3C standard on par with standard RDF. But generalized RDF has not > gone through at all the same level of rigor as standardized RDF -- no test > cases, no interoperable implementations, etc. -- and was not intended by the > W3C to be promoted as a W3C standard. The fact that JSON-LD references that > definition is a bug, not a feature, IMO. > ]] > > Bottom line: I'm not at all convinced by the rationale that I've heard so > far, that the Concepts document is a better place for this definition than > the Semantics document. Is there more rationale that I've missed? Or do you > disagree with my points above? If so, what and why? > > David > >> >> 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: [email protected] >>> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 09:11:18 -0400 >>> From: David Wood <[email protected]> >>> To: David Booth <[email protected]> >>> CC: RDF Comments <[email protected]> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred) [email protected] http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
