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

Re: comments on concepts doc

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 17:15:27 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029170631.02d7e160@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 16:15 29/10/2002 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:

[...]

>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.

Why?  The job of a spec is to specify.  If we wanted to explain why things 
are the way they are we should have written a rationale as well.  I feel 
pretty strongly about this.

>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.

Ah that sounds right.


>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.

Well you say [[Datatyping in RDF is the use of a datatype to associate a 
lexical form with a denoted value.]]  That is a means to achieve the end I 
suggested [[Datatypes are used in RDF to represent values such as integers, 
floating point numbers and dates.]]  Then goal is to express values.


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

What point?


>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.

Err, RDF isn't a protocol.  You are right it needs some mention, but as I 
suggest, perhaps fewer more focussed words.

Brian


>#g
>
>
>-------------------
>Graham Klyne
><GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 12:12:54 EST

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