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

Re: LC response regarding DM Appendix A.4?

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:27:51 +0000
Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5FDAC448-71EE-4AEE-92D4-7F1BEBF51A48@cyganiak.de>
To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Awesome! Thanks a lot! This leaves only Souri's %-encoding issue (#15) without a documented response on the LC wiki page:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/rdb2rdf/wiki/Last_Call

Richard


On 31 Jan 2012, at 16:20, Eric Prud'hommeaux wrote:

> * Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2012-01-31 16:00+0000]
>> 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 ;-)
> 
> Yes, but I'll back that "yes" up with a quote and an MID:
> [[
> done.
> 
> Also updated Appendix A to offload the definitions of "natural RDF
> literal" and "canonical RDF literal" to R2RML. Diffs will be linked
> from the "LC Status and implementation reports" thread.
> ]] http://www.w3.org/mid/20120126131620.GB14015@w3.org
> 
>> Cheers,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
>>>> Appendix A.4, using set-builder notation:
>>>> 
>>>> Rule [44] still includes an editorial comment
>>>> 
>>>> //@@ I can't explain why this was:....
> 
> I remember if I responded to this, but it is gone.
> 
> 
>>>> 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.
> 
> -- 
> -ericP
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 16:28:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 31 January 2012 16:28:22 GMT