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

Re: Primer: new version

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:02:16 -0500
Message-ID: <3C8FF698.1040709@mitre.org>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Thanks very much!  Comments distributed below:

Graham Klyne wrote:

> Working through this.  I think this is fine to publish as WD, and my 
> comments may be taken as suggestions for the next round.
> ...
> I think the fragment id text could go at the end of section 2.1, as you 
> suggest.  The examples could be re-written using RDF/XML -- in this 
> case, I think the XML could be relatively painless.

The problem with this is that RDF/XML isn't really introduced until 
Section 3 (except for the example in Section 1, which really isn't 

> Here are the re-worked examples:
> Section 2.3
> I'd suggest splitting this into four sections:
> (a) RDF model
> (b) N-triples
> (c) Using URIs as identifiers in an RDF graph
> (d) Comparison with other information formats
> I think the comparison with other information formats could usefully be 
> expanded, showing how these various formats related to the RDF graph 
> model.  (And yes, if asked, I will try and draft something for this.)  
> I'd also suggest that this be moved to after the current section 2.4.
> Hmmm... I'm now thinking that the words about fragments might sit more 
> comfortably with the material here about using URIs.

This might work.  Hmmm....

> I've lost track, but did we agree to discontinue use of the term 
> bNode??  (ref section 2.4)

We did, but the situation is more complicated than it might appear. I 
was using "bNode" as an abbreviation for "blank node" (the model theory 
term), not as a synonym for "node identifier" (the model theory term, 
and which I use correctly).  What I need to do is change "bNode" to 
"blank node" (and eliminate the term "nodeID", which I introduce as an 
abbreviation but never use).  Note:  the RDF/XML spec uses the term 
"bnodeID", which is a sort of compromise.

> Section 3.
> I think the first paragraph here is a great idea - refocusing the reader 
> on what it is that the XML will represent.

I thought so too.  That's why I stole it from Dave! (Section 2, para 1 
of the RDF/XML spec)

> I think that the second paragraph should emphasize the definitive role 
> of RDF/XML for exchanging RDF information; e.g. replace the first 
> sentence with:
> [[[
> RDF specifies an XML syntax for describing XML graphs, which is the 
> definitive format for exchanging RDF information between applications.
> ]]]

Good point.

> Section 4.
> I would characterize RDF schema as _describing_ rather than _defining_ 
> RDF classes and properties.  (I think this shifts the emphasis slightly 
> away from a proscriptive notion of constraining RDF structures to a more 
> open one of explaining them.)
Could be.  The whole Schema section needs a lot of work to make it more "primer-like".

Thanks again for the comments.


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 19:52:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC