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

Re: on RDF concepts: thumbs up, contingent on a few things

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 13:54:03 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021104122348.00aba210@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Dan,

Many thanks for this... I think these are all useful comments.

I'm responding here only to those where I seek further clarification or 
maybe compromise.

At 11:49 PM 10/31/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>"well founded deductions in RDF data"
>
>is 'well founded' used here as a particular term of art?
>I don't see what it adds.

I wanted to convey the sense of something more definite that the colloquial 
English (as opposed to mathematical) meaning of "inference".  Suggest 
s/well founded/provable/ ?

>...
>
>"2.2.1 A simple data model
>
>RDF has a simple data model that is easy for applications to process and
>manipulate."
>
>Hm... if it's that simple, can't we say *a little bit*
>about what it is in this section? Maybe...

This is a section on goals, not concepts.  But I do like some of your ideas.

><diversion>
>
>I wonder if "relational" is better than "graph" when
>talking about the abstract syntax or datamodel or
>whatever it is.
>
>Thinking about RDF as the simplest SQL table that can
>subsume all other SQL tables might be a useful
>rhetorical device.
>
></diversion>

I think that might be one for the Primer, if we use it at all?

>...
>
>"a sound basis for reasoning"
>
>er... "sound" is a term of art, like "model theory".
>strike it?

My suggestion:  s/sound/dependable/, which I think also goes a small way to 
addressing your point about motivation.  I'm reluctant to add further 
motivating text at this time, not because I disagree with the points you 
made, but because I'm concerned it would beg more questions.


>... </CRITICAL> <WRONG>
>
>"But what consitutes a "simple fact"? Roughly, the kind of
>information that can be stored in a relational database"
>
>suggest:
>         can be stored in +one cell of+ a relational database
>
>... </WRONG>

Er, I'm not convinced by "one cell of".  I do buy "one row of".

...

I think I got the rest.  Some of your comments were against text that was 
removed in response to Brian's comments.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 08:57:03 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:57 EDT