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

Re: UC&R ready for review

From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 16:15:47 -0400
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20041004201547.GC16180@monkeyfist.com>

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 03:05:56PM -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
> 2.3 consider relocating figure 3 to later in the section.

Okay -- I will so consider.

> 2.5 Niel? (Neil?)

My friend's name is "Niel", which is short for Nathaniel. :>

> 2.9 "programmatically process" ? (= program ?)

Yeah,  I meant to convey "write a program to process...". I'll make
this change.

> 2.15 Mr X has two personae, why does he need three PPDs?

I *think* (didn't entirely understand this myself) because one for
each of his personae and one for *him*... But I may have misunderstood
what Alberto was getting at.

Alberto: is that correct?

> 2.17 Suggest 'class tree hierarchy' --> 'subclass hierarchy', since 
> classes need not (and often do not ) form trees under subclassing.

Will do.

> 3.10 'note' Is there a link to something in the WG archives that 
> could be inserted here?

I'll hunt for something.

> 4.2.1/4.2.2 There is an obvious question here which is left 
> unanswered, which is *how* to refer to the source or sources. Also it 
> is rather grating that these two requirements use non-graph 
> terminology ('source', 'repository', etc.) , suggesting for example 
> that these are talking about something distinct from what 4.2.3 is 
> talking about.

Yes, I'm not entirely happy with this, either. But is there a graph
term for 'source'? 

4.2.1 is meant to offer a local gloss on 'repository' -- at
least, the last two sentences of the first paragraph of 4.2.1 are.

> 4.9 Does'directly' here imply anything special? Suggest either add 
> brief expansion/exposition, or else omit.

Yes, that's me being too twee, I suspect. I proposed 4.9 because I
wanted a (1) query form explicitly for asking yes-no questions (which
in SPARQL is called "ASK..."); and (2) I wanted explicit on-the-wire
representations of boolean values, rather than treating "no solutions"
as false and "1 or more solutions" as true.

Does that help? If so, should some of that be included?

Thanks for the careful review, Pat.

Kendall Clark
Received on Monday, 4 October 2004 20:18:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:45 UTC