Well, Peter replied off list to me, ignoring my questions and
essentially saying that he didn't think that this discussion was going
anywhere good and suggesting that the WG simply vote on it. So that
wasn't helpful at all. :(
Can anyone else fill in more rationale for keeping this definition in
the Concepts spec instead of moving it to the Semantics spec where it is
actually *used*?
This isn't a big enough issue that I would file a formal objection over
it, but it is rather annoying to be summarily dissed instead of just
answering the damn questions and stating the actual rationale.
thanks,
David
On 10/22/2013 10:05 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.
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
