RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax Last Call Comments

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 18:26, 23 October 2013 by Mlanthal (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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