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>

>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.

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

I will settle for striking "arbitrarily".

on striking of example ...

> 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:

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.

Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 16:27:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC