W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: pfps-16, proposed resolution (revised)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 09:51:39 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304090951.39269.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Hi Graham,

I see this message as muddling a simple issue resolution with other editorial 
improvements, and dis-improvements.

> (1) deletion of old section 2.2.7 (which didn't really say anything not 
> covered by 2.2.6)
I like this change, I suggest we list it as editorial, and not under this 
issue.


> (2) revised title and rewording of section 2.2.6:
  
This is mostly an improvement.
I suggest that some of these changes be marked agaisnt williams-01 in the 
change log, since you are using the vocabulary of "statement" and "resource" 
in a consistent fashion rather than miscellaneous words such as "simple 
assertion" "topic", "anything".

I am not 100% confortable with
"In general, it is not assumed that the information about any resource is 
complete: there may be information that is not yet available."
I prefer the smaller option of:
"In general, it is not assumed that complete information about any 
resource is available."





> (3) revised content of section 3.5:
 
The only change necessary for this issue was deleting the last sentence of the 
penultimate paragraph (old text).

Editorial change to the last paragraph is an improvement.

The new first paragraph:
[[
RDF provides a framework to make information about resources readily 
accessible for automated processing. It is domain neutral, so a broad range 
of information can be expressed, and arbitrarily diverse kinds of information 
may be combined in a single RDF graph.
]]
would need to be justified in my view, by a last call comment that indicated 
that this background material was needed.
There is a danger that one of our more pedantic readers would disagree with 
this background statement. Since the text can stand without it, and we did 
not present this paragrpah for last call I would prefer not to add it.

I do not understand the motivation for the further changes to this section, 
and prefer the LC text.

Aspects I like about the LC text (including the section heading):
+ it starts with other representations of simple facts, not RDF
+ it works through the N-placed predicate/N-column table problem in sufficient 
detail. I do not find the primer treatment sufficient.

OTOH this section is one of the longer discursive parts of the text. Having 
cut so much cutting this leaves the document with a more consistent feel.
Maybe it would be possible to reduce the text while still maintaining the two 
features above that I valued in the original.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 03:51:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:54 EDT