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

RE: Concepts heads-up

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:17:46 +0100
To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> >>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> > The current editors' version is at:
> >
> > http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/RDF-concepts/20021121/Overview.html
> Can you please confirm the 'Changes since last publication' section
> is since the http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/ version?


> Maybe you can add those words and link to that section.  Is that
> section going to be in the published version (I hope yes).

My pref is not; I am not strongly opinionated on this.

> If any
> further section is going to be deleted, please note that too.

The only candidate is the clown example ...
We have editorial comments suggesting rework and/or deletion.

> Are there any deleted anchors?  There seem to be deleted sections, so
> I guess yes.  Is anyone using them?

Apart from you no W3C specs refer to the xtoc anchors.
I don't believe any others have gone .... not sure though.

> "Moved all dfn into normative parts of the document, with the
> exception of dfn-blank-node-id and dfn-URIref."
> ?  Why the exception, and why are they in a non-normative section.  A
> pointer and explanation please.

The blank-node-id is explicitly "not part of the RDF abstract syntax"
Hence informative seems appropriate.

dfn-URIref is seen as an informal abrbeviation for dfn-URI-reference, which
is normatively defined.

> Maybe add links to all the linked changes, sections, defns.
> Maybe another cross-doc consistency point.  I changed the acks
> section in the syntax WD to be paragraphs rather than a large
> vertical <ul>.  Using the same words as the first concepts WD:
>   Acknowledgements
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Acknowledgments

I was wondering about that as a possibility ...

> There are lots of changes to this document

Substantive changes? The adding of the "normative" words, (or is that a
clarification of intent). The deletion of 5.1 which was flagged in the first
version as a possibility. Other changes are dealing with editorial comments
that we hadn't addressed in the rush to the last publication.

>  and I'm worried about it
> since it is meant to be ready for last call

No it's not; not until the end of the week!

> and there seems to be
> more than just editorial changes so far.

Rewriting a section to say the same thing in different words is editorial. I
do not believe that there are any changes in the substance of what is being
said here.

> I'm expecting this will
> need a substantial review.

We have set aside in the calendar a significant review period.
I am expecting all our docs to require substantial review.

> Thanks
> Dave

Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 09:18:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:02 UTC