Re: review of current status of the "What's New" document (ACTION-330)

I don't view it as necessary to call out the skolemization stuff in changes, 
as it could always have been done.  The only thing that Concepts now does is 
gives a bit of cover to what was more-or-less already happening.

Maybe that clears the bar to be mentioned here, though, so I wouldn't gripe 
much more if that stayed in.

peter

On 11/27/2013 10:03 AM, David Wood wrote:
> Thanks, Peter.
>
> I generally agree, but am curious why you think this Note shouldn't mention 
> Skolemization.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
> On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:32, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" 
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com <mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> The document isn't nearly finished, so this cannot be a complete review.
>>
>>
>> Suggestion for important changes list:
>> - named graphs
>> - plain literals
>> - datatypes
>> - new syntaxes
>> That's all!  Note, nothing from semantics.
>>
>>
>> There are several places where the document has too much, or misleading, 
>> information.
>>
>> - The paragraph saying the section is about Concepts is misleading and 
>> should be removed.
>>
>> - The paragraph saying that Concepts is definitional only.  This is not a 
>> change, and even if it was, there is no need to talk about that here.  The 
>> paragraph should be removed
>>
>> - Rewrite the new syntax paragraph to something like:
>>  RDF 1.1. introduces a number of new serialization formats. RDF/XML is no 
>> longer the only recommended serialization format and should be allowed to 
>> die a deserved death.   The import of an RDF document is carried by the RDF 
>> graph (or RDF dataset) that results from the document.
>>
>> - The paragraph on DOM madness should read something like:
>>   Planned updates ... rdf:HTML.  DOM version 4 is needed to clarify 
>> functionality ... formats. The unfinished status of ....
>>
>> - Generalized RDF should not be mentioned here.
>>
>> - Skolemization should not be mentioned here.
>>
>> The paragraph on datatypes should say that rdf:XMLLiteral support is optional.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Semantics section is copied from my message to implementers.  It 
>> carries too much information and duplicates some of the stuff from before.
>>
>> The paragraphs starting "Literals", "There is", and "The rdf:XMLLiteral" 
>> can all be removed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More when the rest of the document shows up.
>>
>>
>> peter
>>
>>

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 18:54:47 UTC