Re: completed comments on concepts doc

At 15:39 29/10/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Hi Brian
>
>I just wanted to pick up on the purple bits - all mine.
>
>1: URI Ref
>The URI Ref section is a mess - I tried to fix it and failed and reverted to
>the previously published version that you've dissected.
>
>For this publication, in your opinion, would it suffice to note that this
>section is currently inadequate in the detail but captures the main intent;
>or would you like me to have another go at making sense of it.

I think it can go as is for now.


>2: predicate *RDF* URI Reference
>   accept
>
>3: Graph Equality
>   largely reject - change to
>Two RDF graphs are equal if and only if they are isomorphic, as follows.

I think that deals with with the 'not all isomorphisms will do' 
comment.  Should be a colon on the end of that though.


>rationale:
>   - your term Graph Equality Isomorphism is ugly.

raised eyebrow

>   - standard usage is that XXX isomorphism preserves the structure of XXX.
>    thus an RDF Graph isomorphism preserves the structure of an RDF Graph.

for some notion of structure, but different isomorphisms can preserve 
different aspects of the structure.

>    This standard usage (largely) depends on a defn of an XXX isomorphism for
>each XXX.
>    "respects" has a well-established meaning when discussing isomorphisms
>and does not further clarification. FYI it indicates that the structure is
>unaffected by the bijection.

Well established where?  In mathematical circles?  You are not writing just 
for mathematicians.  I don't know what it means.  If I am a member of the 
intended audience of this document then a part of the intended audience is 
not going to understand this bit.

>  If i is the isomorphism then i respects arc labels if and only if for any
>arc a and any label l, l labels a <=> l labels i(a).
>
>
>4: Charmod
>(Not sure why this is purple ... I suppose this will be a substantive change
>at last call).
>As it says in the doc, Charmod is currently in last call, and, upon
>examination of the I18N web site appears to be stalled awaiting advancement
>of IRI-draft, which appears to be stalled since its author is too busy in
>IRI-advocacy mode on the tag!
>I am intending to formally propose the deletion of this para straight after
>this publication. I feel that it is better to leave it in now so that when
>we get last call comments from I18N about what happened to thbe early
>uniform normalization (that is mentioned in M&S) we point to this WD.
>
>The failure of the I18N people to advance charmod really leaves us little
>choice here.

I suggest saying this in the draft.

>PS Didn't you have any comments on the changelog?

Why are there two revisions 1.2?  :)

Brian