W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: a request for help

From: Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 09:35:04 -0400
To: kendall@monkeyfist.com
Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-id: <40B34B88.9010305@sun.com>

Kendall Clark wrote:

>Folks,
>
>Unless I miss my guess dramatically, we'll be asked to vote on the
>UC&R draft during our telcon this week. That being said, the present
>draft is very stable -- unchanged since last Thursday:
>
>      http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/UseCases
>
>IIRC, you should find >= 1.89 there.
>
>  
>
Document is looking very good. Congratulations.

Minor editorial comments follows:

-Section 2.1: Motivates hyper link not resolved

-Section 2.2: User-specifiable Serialization not resolved

Comments on Variants

Prefer 3.4 over 3.4a

-Prefer 4.6a to 4.6 b

-3.6 Optional Match. Neither wording is clear enough for me to 
understand the intent.

-Prefer 3.10a over 3.10. This is not just difference in wording but 
difference in underlying requirements.

-Prefer 4.6a over 4.6b. Is the intent that other semantic languages are 
an RDF dialect? If so we should say it explicitly. If not, then I 
question why it is a requirement for DAWG.

Thanks again for the good work.

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2004 09:35:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:19 GMT