Re: Error (IMHO) in the formal doc

On Wed Dec  3 14:57:43 2008 Phil Archer said:

> Working through the discussion with Tim about the conformance criteria  
> for the formal doc has made me re-read section 5 where you've written:
>
> "In addition, the POWDER processor may return a triple with a u as  
> subject, wdrs:describedby as property, and the IRI of the POWDER  
> processor as object."
>
> That should read:
>
> "In addition, the POWDER processor may return a triple with a u as  
> subject, wdrs:describedby as property, and the IRI of the *POWDER  
> document* from which the description was obtained as object. If more  
> than one POWDER document is the source of the description then each  
> should be the object of a similar triple."

It's fine. I also wouldn't mind clearly defining "similar":

 ... then each should  be the object o of a separate
  <u> wdrs:describedby <o> .
triple.

> Is that going to make you go into a huff of logic?

Amazingly, not. No prob, +1 from me.

s