Thanks Pat. I'll reply to the comments list so that you can close this
issue.
David
On 10/23/2013 10:58 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Oct 22, 2013, at 11:02 PM, David Booth wrote:
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. :(
That was very helpful. Right now, the WG is under extreme pressure to
get the documents finalized. Niggling over trivial stylistic or
editorial details is neither useful nor appropriate.
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*?
As has already been pointed out, the rationale is that Concepts is
the document which defines the basic ideas, and this is a basic idea.
A similar rationale was used to put other definitions into Concepts.
Perhaps you do not find this rationale persuasive, but it is the
rationale that was in fact used, so it is the answer to your
question.
Pat
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
------------------------------------------------------------ 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
