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 22:27:41 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304092227.41647.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Jeremy:
>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.

Graham:
> I disagree (strongly) that it needs to be justified by a last call comment.

I will settle for striking "arbitrarily".

on striking of example ...

Graham:
> Here, I find it difficult to match changes exactly with issues raised.  In 
> his comments, Peter raised a number of objections about the comparison with 
> database and n-place predicates, and the changes were made to address those 
> concerns.

Looking in the archive I found:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0320.html

where Peter seemed mainly concerned about ill-thought claims concerning 
expressive power. Deleting the single sentence addresses that problem.

I can't see any others in the archive - what I am missing?

The LC text does not claim that the RDF representation is equivalent, merely 
that it is an expression of, an n-place predicate or a n-column table.

The primer does not deal with this problem, which is why I thought we had this 
text in the first place.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 16:27:19 EDT

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