CommentResponse:GR-5

From SPARQL Working Group
Jump to: navigation, search

Draft response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2011Mar/0002.html


Hi Gregg,

Thanks for sharing this document. I am afraid the group doesn't have resources nor time to enter into fundamental issues around RDF (the recently re-started RDF working group [1] is rather to address those) within the strict bounds of our charter [2].

Please understand that this list is particularly meant for concrete comments on the work and drafts of the SPARQL WG, but we don't have resources to provide official feedback to external drafts from within the group (which doesn't preclude individual members of the group to give you feedback, of course).

We'd appreciate if you could indicate whether this response adequately addresses your comment.

Regards, Axel

1. http://www.w3.org/2010/09/rdf-wg-charter.html

2. http://www.w3.org/2009/05/sparql-phase-II-charter.html

> On 5 Mar 2011, at 22:05, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
>
>Hi WG,
>
>I mentioned in a previous message that I was playing around with a 
>Category-Theoretic approach to RDF.  I just posted a PDF file of notes 
>addressing that and a bunch of the issues I brought up in messages 
>to this WG.  If you found any of those comments mystifying, these notes 
>might add some clarity.  It's at http://blog.mobileink.com/2011/03/resource-token-exchange.html.
>It's a little disorganized but readable, and there are at least a couple of 
>things in there that I have not seen elsewhere, so you might find it worth 
>your while to take quick look.  Naturally I would greatly appreciate  
>any feedback.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Gregg Reynolds