W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2001

Re: RDF/XML Syntax Internal Working Draft V1.23

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:16:25 +0100
Message-ID: <3B8E9109.7A2D6D45@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Dave,

Excellent work.  I've only a few comments:

Status section, near end

         Comments on this document are invited and should be sent to the
         public mailing list www-rdf-comments@w3.org or to the RDF Core
         Working Group.

suggest delete 'or to the RDF Core Working Group'  - rdf-comments is 
the right channel.

Section 1 para 2

         The RDF Core Working Group was chartered to revise RDF in light
         of this implementor feedback, addressing these issues, making
         decisions on ambiguous cases, changes where necessary, and to
         record these as potential errata for the original document. These
         changes have to be checked with the developer community as to
         their affect on existing implementations and documents.

Lets stick closer to the actual wording in the charter, e.g. 

  The RDFCore WG is chartered to respond to the need for a number of
  fixes, clarifications and improvements to the specification of RDF's
  abstract model and XML syntax.  The WG wishes feedback from the
  developer community of the effects of its proposals on existing
  implementations and documents.

4.1, table rows 2&3

element([prop1]=value1, [prop1]=value2, ...)
                         ^^^^^

prop2?

4.8

Sorry, don't know my infoset well enough.  Does defining an attibute
to take a value of type ID have a similar effect as DTD ID's?  e.g.
only one per element.  Does it have implications for what the ID
denotes e.g. something in this document.

4.12

Grammar is ambiguous since both productions match a typeAttr.  Statement
somewhere (4.1?) that if a production matches an 'any' or something more
specific, the more specific production applies.  Also affects 4.4 and 4.5.

Appendix A

Does this document reference n-triples, schema primer, schema datatypes? 


Nits:  Ignorable.

Section 1 para 1

         RDF Model & Syntax used an EBNF form plus explanatory text to
         define and explain the XML syntax. 

change to 'explain the RDF/XML syntax'.

Section 1 para 4

spelling 'resulting'

Section 1 para 4

'in terms of XML characters'.  delete XML.

Section 3 para 1

delete 'that endorse the changes from the issues list.'


Brian



Dave Beckett wrote:
> 
> This addresses ACTION 2001-08-24#3 DaveB: Get syntax draft updated.
> 
>   RDF/XML Syntax - RDF Core WG Internal Working Draft V1.23
>   http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/
> 
> I have expanded the introduction, tidied up the document and
> reformatted and did some more tidying of the infoset grammar section
> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/07/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Infoset-Grammar
> 
> This is as much as I can do in the time available to allow review it
> for Friday.
> 
> Dave
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 15:20:00 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:50 EDT