W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: rdf11-concepts WD ready

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:14:56 +0100
Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8809D224-2BD6-40C9-8CFF-3BA2335D7346@cyganiak.de>
To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Gavin, Pat,

Thanks for the comments, they are very helpful. All points acknowledged. I note that a lot of the language that Pat points out is unchanged from the 2004 version, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

All points are either about readability, or require some additional discussion or research, so I hope it's ok if we defer handling them until after this WD publication round, in the interest of getting the bigger normative changes out of the door.

I'm raising an issue to track the feedback.

All the best,
Richard


On 30 May 2012, at 01:02, Gavin Carothers wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>> In case anyone wants to have a last-minute check of the RDF Concepts draft before it goes out for publication:
>> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/rdf-concepts-WD2/rdf-concepts/index.html
> 
> Oooh, my turn!
> 
> There are sections like
> http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/rdf-concepts-WD2/rdf-concepts/index.html#section-IRIs
> which seem to completely overwhelm their content with notes. Any time
> a note immediately follows a note there is likely room for
> improvement. Also the text doesn't seem to go a whole subsection
> without another note. Doesn't really need to be addressed before a new
> WD is published.
> 
> Graph isomorphism seems an odd (poor) choice of the first thing
> mentioned in the 3 RDF Graphs section. Should likely come after
> defining a blank node or it's not going to make any sense.
> 
> "Every absolute URI and URL is an IRI" ... this is a bold statement
> which should be true but uh... perhaps I'll just let that one sit
> there.
> 
> XML 1.1 many things are said about XML 1.1 ... I don't think any of
> those statements mater as there are no implementations of XML 1.1 and
> the number of people likely to care about RDF/XML in XML 1.1 is zero.
> Now XML 1.0 5th Edition...
> 
>> 
>> The publication date is still preliminary.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 08:15:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT