W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: more tidying references

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 19:22:19 -0500
To: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1122164539.7049.372.camel@localhost>

On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 18:04 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> In response to a couple comments...
> missing references in appendix 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0037.html
> 
> XML 1.1 EBNF normative
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg-comments/2005Jul/0029.html
> 
> I'm doing an audit of the references.
[...]
> When I get a clean run, I intend to check in rq23/Overview.html
> (with fairly detailed change log, of course).

OK... done...

Revision 1.436  2005/07/24 00:15:01  connolly
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#references
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#chlog


I wasn't sure how to resolve these, so I have left them outstanding:


        link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
        [Unicode Security Considerations]
        "http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/"


        link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
        [This has been noted by RDF-core]
        "http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects"


        link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
        [<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#nil>]
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_nil"


        link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
        [<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type>]
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type"


        link is neither local, part, informative, nor normative:
        [http://www.w3.org/2004/07/xpath-functions]
        "http://www.w3.org/2004/07/xpath-functions"


I don't understand why there are links to rdf-schema.

I wonder if the unicode security considerations reference should
be moved to the protocol. (more on that separately).

The link to #rdfms-literalsubjects uses odd hypertext style. I'm
not sure what to make of it just now.

And I don't quite understand the role of the 07/xpath-functions
namespace. An example would sure help.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Sunday, 24 July 2005 00:22:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:23 GMT