W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-grddl-wg@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Use Cases review

From: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 09:47:55 +0100
Message-ID: <45DD58BB.1090906@sophia.inria.fr>
To: public-grddl-wg@w3.org

Clark, John a écrit :
> Dan Connolly wrote:
>   
>>> Clark, John:
>>>       
>>>> 1. Introduction[1]:
>>>>   
>>>>   * "There are many dialects in practice among the many XML 
>>>> documents on the
>>>>     web."
>>>>     ->
>>>>     "There exist many dialects of XML in use by documents 
>>>>         
>> on the web."
>>     
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> Done.
>>>       
>> Hmm... that seems overly stilted, to me.
>>
>> Note that this sentence also starts the main spec. I don't 
>> intend to change it.
>>     
>
> I was simply trying to clarify the original, which seemed a bit
> confusing.  Perhaps "There are many dialects of XML in use by documents
> on the web." would be easier to read.
>   
Ok. Changed in v 1.75 2007/02/21 16:32:07
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm


>   
>>>>   * "How, for example, does software discover the author 
>>>>         
>> of a poem, a
>>     
>>>>     spreadsheet and an ontology? And how can software 
>>>>         
>> determine whether
>>     
>>>>     authors of each are in fact the same person?"
>>>>     ->
>>>>     "How, for example, does software discover the author 
>>>>         
>> of a poem, a
>>     
>>>>     spreadsheet, or an ontology? And how can software 
>>>>         
>> determine whether
>>     
>>>>     any two of these authors are in fact the same person?"
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> Done.
>>>       
>> That seems odd too; how can two authors be the same person?
>> Two names might refer to the same people, but if the authors 
>> are the same, there's just one of them, not two.
>>     
>
> Perhaps the second question should be rephrased as "And how can software
> determine whether any two of these authors in fact refer to the same
> person?"  Again, I was trying to clarify the original, here.
>
>   
>>>>   * Is the RDF abstraction a "syntax"?  I always thought 
>>>>         
>> of it as a 
>>     
>>>> "model".
>>>>     *shrugs*
>>>>   
>>>>         
>>> I prefer model too. So changed to model.
>>>       
>> Hmm... I'd avoid "model".
>>     
Ok, *changed back* to "abstract syntax" and linked to RDF document in v 
1.75 2007/02/21 16:32:07
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/grddl-wg/doc43/scenario-gallery.htm


-- 
Fabien - http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/fabien/
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 08:48:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:47 GMT