Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Last Call Comments
Contents
- 1 More clearly warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard (David Booth)
- 2 RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman)
- 3 Fragment Identifiers (Sebastian Hellmann)
- 4 rdfs:Graph and Issue 35 (Jeremy J Carroll)
- 5 References and acknowledgements (Jeremy J Carroll)
- 6 Minor normative error in LC drafts (Jeremy J Carroll)
- 7 Definition of "Generalized RDF" (David Booth)
- 8 IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource (David Booth)
- 9 owl:imports and graph names and issue 38 (Jeremy J Carroll)
- 10 CR Comments (Michael Schneider)
More clearly warn that "generalized RDF" is non-standard (David Booth)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-139 using David Booth's proposed solution at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0002.html. Exact wording will be considered editorial.
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0001.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
RDF Dataset Comparison (Ivan Herman)
RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-140 by accepting Pat's suggested change documented in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013Aug/0022.html
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0002.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
Fragment Identifiers (Sebastian Hellmann)
CLOSED: See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0023.html
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Sep/0016.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
rdfs:Graph and Issue 35 (Jeremy J Carroll)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Aug/0050.html
Commenter Accepted: No
2nd Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0039.html
Commenter Accepted: No (will submit formal objection)
RESOLVED: Close issue-142 over Jeremy's (planned) formal objection
Draft of the formal objection
References and acknowledgements (Jeremy J Carroll)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0049.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
Minor normative error in LC drafts (Jeremy J Carroll)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0018.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
Definition of "Generalized RDF" (David Booth)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0046.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
IRIs do *not* always denote the same resource (David Booth)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0029.html
Commenter Accepted: not yet, but OK to postpone the exact resolution until CR
RESOLVED: Consider ISSUE-148 non-blocking -- we can publish while leaving it open to handle later, as it is editorial and the commenter agrees with this plan
owl:imports and graph names and issue 38 (Jeremy J Carroll)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0040.html
Commenter Accepted: Yes
CR Comments (Michael Schneider)
Formal Response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2013Oct/0062.html
Commenter Accepted: yes