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 14:09:29 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021104140108.03c5f3e0@127.0.0.1>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Further to my last response, it occurred to me that I should indicate the 
disposition of <CRITICAL> comments...

At 11:49 PM 10/31/02 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>... <CRITICAL>
>
>"The normative documentation of RDF falls broadly into the following
>areas:
>  ...
>  # RDF vocabulary definition language (RDF schema)"
>
>no, the normative documentation of RDF doesn't
>include RDFS. Strike that bullet, or move
>the mention of RDFS ouside the list, ala:
>
>         The framework is designed so that vocabularies
>         can be layered on top of this core. RDFS is the first such
>         vocabulary. Others (cf OWL and the applications
>         in the primer) are in development.
>
>(This point suggests that the RDFS part of the model
>theory should be split out from the rest on process
>grounds. But I'm not reviewing that document here...)
>
>... </CRITICAL>

Done.

>... <CRITICAL>
>
>"This is where RDF departs from the XML approach to data
>representation, which is generally quite prescriptive"
>
>No, if there is one XML approach to data representation,
>it by definition includes RDF/XML. Reprhase as:
>
>         This is where RDF departs from more prescriptive
>         approaches to representing data in XML ...
>
>
>... </CRITICAL>

Done.

>... <CRITICAL>
>
>"... RDF aims to provide for universal expression ..."
>
>don't go there. Try "flexible expression" or some such.
>
>... </CRITICAL>

Done.  Actually, I just deleted "universal".

>... <CRITICAL>
>
>"Thus, there is a distinction between RDF expressions that are asserted,
>and those that are not."
>
>That looks like a good defining occurence of
>'asserted'. Please make it a hyperlink target
>and mark it up with <dfn>
>(and point to it from a glossary at the end?).
>
>... </CRITICAL>

This particular text had been removed, but I added back a single sentence, 
so it now reads:

[[
RDF/XML expressions, i.e. encodings of RDF graphs, can be used
to make claims or assertions about the 'real' world.
Such expressions are said to be <dfn>asserted</dfn>.
]]

(The glossary is yet to-be-arranged.)


>... <CRITICAL>
>
>"If you publish a graph G and G logically entails G'"
>
>There's more than one entailment relationship in
>this framework. I'm not sure how to be more clear
>here, but I know it's important for layering
>issues, esp. WebOnt coordination.
>
>Please put one of those [[[we know this needs work]]]
>markers there.
>
>... </CRITICAL>

I've done that, but it doesn't feel satisfactory.  I had hoped this would 
be closer to a final form.  This is a tough area to get right, and I think 
conflicting comments reflect that.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 09:31:14 EST

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