Re: Lost in the shuffle? (Re: PROPOSED: that SPARQL advance to CR)

On Mar 26, 2006, at 8:16 PM, Dan Connolly wrote:

> On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 18:13 -0500, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> The other nice bit would be if there were nice anchors for the
>> definitions, e.g, #def1
>
> Do they not already have nice anchors?
>
> at least some do:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#defn_RDFTerm
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/rq23/#defn_QueryVariable

So they do. I missed that when I did a quick view source check.

> And I wonder... why would "definition 15" be better
> than "Definition: RDF Term"?

I actually would prefer Definition 15: RDF Term

However, as long as there's a clear algorithm to get from the text to 
the anchor, I guess it isn't too bad. Which there seems to be.

> I agree it's editorial, and if you can work with the editors
> to get it in, very well.
>
> But I don't see that much motivation
> for it, and it'll take some effort to maintain over time.

One hopes the document will be fixed at some point :)

But yes, the anchors go a long way. Thanks for the pointer.

(I prefer numbered definitions because it's a bit easy to shorten.)

Cheers,
Bijan.