W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2014

RE: RDF 1.1 On Semantics of RDF Datasets updated

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:23:29 +0100
To: "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'Antoine Zimmermann'" <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>, "'RDF Working Group WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013401cf2d7e$2bb81fd0$83285f70$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
> On 19-02-14 13:42, Antoine Zimmermann wrote:
> > I've updated the W3C note on dataset semantics.
> >
> > It validates fine with ReSpec and an HTML validator. Should be all
> good
> > for publication.
> >
> > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-dataset/index.html

While scrolling through the document I noticed that in section 3.6 Quad
semantics, it looks as something went wrong with the "Properties of this
dataset semantics" subsection. In all other sections that header is an <h4>,
there it is a <h3>.

I haven't read the rest of the document but just in that small subsection
there are several grammatical errors:

"There are several existing proposal that extends this quad semantics"
 --> There are several existing proposals that extend this quad semantics

"For instance, temporal RDF [TEMPORAL-RDF] use the fourth element
 to denote a time frame, and reasoning can be performed per time frame"
  --> ... uses the fourth element to denote a time frame
        and thus allows reasoning to be performed (or similar)

We discussed minting a IRI for each of these options. Unfortunately, I can't
remember what we decided but I still think that would be a good idea. It's
an informative document, everyone can mint IRIs and as such I see no risk or
downside of doing so but just benefits. If we don't live what we preach, why
should others?

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 14:24:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:19 UTC