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

Re: comments on concepts doc

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:15:16 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021029152533.03852ec0@127.0.0.1>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>

At 05:01 PM 10/28/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>I attach a marked up copy of the concepts doc containing a lot of green 
>ink.  The good news is that its green which makes it stylistic rather than 
>substantive comment.  The bad news is that there is a lot of it.  I've 
>only got about half way through.  I'll try to find time tomorrow to mark 
>up the rest, but may have to steal it from working on schema with Danbri.

Brian,

I find a majority of your comments to be helpful.

There are some where, no surprise, we fundamentally disagree.  I'll respond 
here to the problematic ones, and those where I seek further 
clarification;  the others I'll work on with editorial discretion.

Section 2, references to background material.  Recalling the difficulties I 
had when originally learning about RDF, I think references to background 
information are really important.  I will look to de-emphasize them so that 
they may appear less ostentatious, but I strongly resist removing 
them.  (But if anyone feels they are not the most appropriate references I 
would be happy to entertain others.)

Much of the material in section 2.2.7 was included in response to a 
reasonable comment, though I agree mostly belongs in concepts.  I'll 
reorganize it rather than remove it.

Terms, definition/introduction and use:  I have tried to use HTML styles 
<dfn> and <cite> for these;  the formatting is just what's in the 
stylesheet.  These happen to be easy to apply using my HTML editor.

Section 2.4.4:  Datatypes, means and ends:  I don't agree with, or 
misunderstand, your comment.  I think a datatype *is* a _means_, the _end_ 
being to do roughly what I said.   I'll try for some wording that finesses 
the distinction.

Section 2.4.5:  I think this section makes an important point.  I can 
massage the words.

Section 2.4.6:  Most of this was in response to an observed 
confusion.  Entailment is a different kind of specification from those 
found in other protocol definitions, and I felt that it needed some exposition.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 11:22:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:33 EDT