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

Re: Overview and Abstract Data Model - new document

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:03:23 +0100
Message-ID: <3D4156AB.4050407@hpl.hp.com>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


About section 3 and some of the references ...


> 
> 3
> 
> (Syntax doc will point to 3.1*, 3.2* and remove the appropriate sections)
> 
> 3.1
>   RDF URIrefs are compatible with, but aren't based on, W3C XML
>   Schema (WXS) anyURI.  If we define RDF in terms of WXS, that adds new
>   normative references and we haven't done that yet.


Correct this is not intended to normatively depend on WXS but to be 
compatible with, I will check the text.


> 
> 3.2.2
>   Explain where <tag> came from.  Something like, this is not a new
>   element but used to show how an XML literal is any legal XML
>   element content and can be used "as if" enclosed in a
>   <tag>...</tag>


Yes this bit needs a bit of polishing.


> 3.2.2.1
>   odd numbering, only sub-section.  Maybe add 3.2.3 Equality of
>   Literals and add equality of strings(+lang), xml(+lang)
>   sub-sections of that/


I'll consider.


> 
> 3.4 Triples
>   need to point here from earlier where triple was first mentioned
> 
> 3.5 RDF graph
>   "collection of RDF triples"?   Must be something more precise than
>   that?


That's precise.


> 
>   The Note: maybe should be in the body text and a <ul> list?


I didn't want to make heavy weather out of this; really only interesting 
for mathematicians.


> 
> 3.7
>   This list is correct at the moment, but I would ask it point
>   to a syntax doc section or list, since the list may change
>   (for example the proposed rdf:node)


I think we are planning to drop this list all together if the WG is 
minded to say that this URIrefs are legal but cannot be serialized.

In which case that point should be made in the serialization section of 
the syntax doc.


> 

>   To be completed.
> 
>   We aren't normative on charmod.  or c14n?


We are certainly normative on xc14n (xml literal resolution).

I'll consider the charmod status, you might be right.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 10:03:50 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:49:53 EDT