W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: update to MT document

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:22:19 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101031b87b73f6e634@[65.212.118.208]>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  >>>Pat Hayes said:
>>  An updated version of the MT document can be found at
>>
>>  http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/w3-rdf-mt-draft-J.html
>
>You updated the definitions section; I intend to steal some of this
>for the start of the syntax doc since I got some feedback about my
>rather hasty and inadqueate description of the RDF graph.

OK, but be aware that the definitions here make graphs be non-tidy on 
literal nodes, which is currently controversial. That may be changed 
once we settle on a datatyping scheme, so use these defs with caution.

>  > ...
>
>You  said:
>>   7. Deleted section 7 on containers until we get that sorted out.
>
>I don't see that in the previous 25 Sep published WD.  I assume you
>mean deleted from the previous internal draft?

Right.

>The abstract still
>mentions this I see, so I guess that is OK.
>
>What needs to be sorted out?

See 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0094.html 
(end of that msg). The MT did 'sort this out' in a sense, but in a 
way that made rdf:Bags into a species of sequence; ie it said, in 
effect, that all containers were totally ordered in RDF (ordered by 
the access properties :_1, :_2 etc. ), but that bags were just 
declared to have the baggishness property; it would be up to some 
other application to figure out that the bag with A in :_1 and B in 
:_2 was the 'same' bag as the one with A in :_2 and B in :_1. Jeremy 
doesn't like that, I gather, so this issue isn't resolved yet.

>  If there are issues, can you make sure
>they are linked to issues recorded on the issues list so that readers
>of this document can follow the open issues, and find out later on
>how they are addressed.

OK, I will try to find the relevant open-issues. There doesnt seem to 
be one specifically addressing reification, oddly enough.

>
>You could add a short section listing the known/open issues to be
>addressed.  Doesn't have to be much, even a bulleted list with
>entries of the form
>"reification - yeah, we are working on it, see tracking Issue rdfms-....".

Good idea, if I can locate them I will do that. I will certainly add 
the 'open issues' section as an appendix.

>Finally, you need to update some references to the newer versions
>
>[RDF/XML] should point to the 18 Dec one (and new title too)
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20011218
>
>[RDFTestCases] should point to the 15 Nov one:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-testcases-20011115/

Thanks, done.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 17:22:02 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:44:02 EDT