W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2012

LC response regarding DM Appendix A.4?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:00:38 +0000
Message-Id: <2DD87703-4542-4608-A0E5-8AB76F9E6282@cyganiak.de>
Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Eric, did you formally respond to this LC comment from Ivan?
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Nov/0025.html

In particular did you address the two questions quoted below? I believe this is fixed in the DM ED, but would like to have an explicit confirmation for the records. A “Yes” is sufficient ;-)

Cheers,
Richard


> > Appendix A.4, using set-builder notation:
> >
> > Rule [44] still includes an editorial comment
> >
> > //@@ I can't explain why this was:....
> >
> > Also: I must admit I did not have the time to check the whole thing in
> > detail, but I do not see where the predicate URI-s using 'ref-XXXX-YYY' are
> > created. Are you sure the 'ref-' prefix is indeed part of the definition?
> > Should that be in [38]?
> >
> 
> Eric, Alexandre: can you respond to this.
> 
> >
> > ----
> > Appendix A.4, using set notation
> >
> > I have the impression that [36] is wrong in the sense that it was not
> > adapted to the latest version of the URI construction (still using '='
> > sign...)
> >
> > Also, the same question on the 'ref-XXX-YYY' as for the previous version.
> > Note also that the English text misses the 'ref-' string, too. Here again,
> > it should be [38], shouldn't it?
> >
> 
> Eric, Alexandre: can you respond to this.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 16:01:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 January 2012 16:01:21 GMT