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

Re: more tidying references

From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:35:51 +0100
Message-ID: <42E4DCA7.5070006@hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>



Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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

Great!

> 
> 
> 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 can explain the schema links: they are links for constants used in SPARQL. 
rdf:nil and rdf:type.

RDF Collections are in rdf:nil is in RDF schema and SPARQL has list syntax to 
agree with that and mentions rdf:nil (i.e the rdf collection "()")

Similarly for "a" - rq23 says it stands for rdf:type and links to that URI.

So a RDF schema link should be normative (or remove the links and leave the 
bytes for the URI not in a <a> but that woudl be shame).

> 
> 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.

We could remove it but leaving the quote as explanation (maybe without a link, 
pref with a link) seems better.

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

	Andy
Received on Monday, 25 July 2005 12:36:56 GMT

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