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

Re: Overview and Abstract Data Model - new document

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 15:14:51 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020729092227.038a3380@127.0.0.1>
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Dave,

Thanks for your review.

I've taken on board most of the points you raise.  To avoid spinning cycles 
on purely stylistic  matters, I'm going to focus my response on requests 
for substantive change which I've not incorporated, or for which I feel 
some clarification is in order.

At 03:32 PM 7/25/02 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote:
>Title:
>   The group decided this is not an RDF overview document

I've changed the title to remove "Overview", but I do think it's important 
the title should reflect that there's content other than just the abstract 
data model.  Currently:

   Resource Description Framework (RDF):
   Concepts and Abstract Data Model

But I'm still open to other suggestions.

>Section 1
>   Para 3 Says section 2 is background, design goals and rationale.
>   Rename section 2 title to represent that.  Maybe add motivation and
>   design goals to earlier five bullets.

Section renamed (see below).  Motivation and design goals don't belong in 
the bullets, which are introduced as the normative elements of RDF 
specification.

>Section 2
>   rename title to 'Design goals and rationale'.

Following your intent, I think, I've opted for:

   2. RDF background, rationale and concepts

>2.2
>   [W3C] XML schema datatypes were never in the original RDF design,
>   need to clarify somehow.
>
>   Cite something about W3C XML Schemas.

I'm not sure what can usefully be said here, other than what is already 
said.  I think the fact that use of XML schema datatypes was not detailed 
in the original RDF design is not really relevant here.

>2.2.4
>   cite the normative rdf syntax WD here not stripedrdf

I looked into this, and come to the view that the normative syntax draft 
doesn't really illustrate the point I'm trying to make.  Dan's document does.

>2.3.2
>   section 3.7 link is broken.  Point to the mime types section of
>   the syntax document.

I've changed this, but cited the MIME type registration document directly.

>2.4.1
>   directed edge-labeled graph ?
>
>   Introduce the term triple more formally?

That comes later.  I've added a forward link.

>2.4.3
>   [XML-AS-RDF] - no reference, not sure what you want to cite here.

I've cited a work-in-progress of my own, but I'd prefer something more 
widely known.  RSS might be a candidate?  Can any RSS cognoscenti comment?

>   N-Triples rather than notation3?  Reverse setence to emphasis
>   the normative syntax :)

In this case, I meant Notation3.  (Otherwise, I've reworked the sentence as 
you suggest.)

>2.5
>   It would be nice to see something about XML namespaces, RDF schema
>   document location and so on, how they have typically been used.
>
>   I noticed CC/PP says things about this, beyond what RDF core does.

That feels to me more like detail material for the tutorial.

I'm not sure what I could usefully add here.

[[[Section 3:  Jeremy has the editing token for this, and I'll let him 
respond.]]]

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

Currently, we *are* normative on these.  (A note has been added to section 4.1)

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 29 July 2002 09:58:50 EDT

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