W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > January to March 2006

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

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 20:26:47 -0500
Message-Id: <822c934bb9cb847d8f1aaa4b2ef97ea8@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

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.)

Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 01:26:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:00:50 UTC