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

Re: williams-01, proposal take 2

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:57:28 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030618105123.030730b0@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:37 18/06/03 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>Hi Graham
>
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0138.html
>lists two actions against me concerning your message
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
>
>specifically:
>
>
>
>ACTION 2003-03-21#6 jjc: review
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-rdf-graph
>   in concepts WD after proposal to change in
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
>   and circulate changes to the WG.
>
>ACTION 2003-03-21#7 jjc: review
>
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-blank-nodes
>   in concepts WD after proposal to change in
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0114.html
>   and propose change/non-change or further clarification to the WG.
>
>====
>
>On the first, I have reviewed the text and believe no change is necessary in
>#section-rdf-graph
>(I have however inserted the two words "set of" to ensure number agreement on
>"is").

I agree.  But I think the following:

[[
A URI reference or literal used as a node identifies what that node 
represents. A URI reference used as a predicate identifies the relationship 
between the nodes it connects. A predicate URI reference may also be a node 
in the graph.
]]
-- 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#section-URI-Vocabulary

should be revised to say something like
"... identifies the relationship between the things represented by the 
nodes it connects"

>On the second, you suggested:
>
>
>may not be sufficently clear to non-mathematical persons.  I think it's
>mathematically clear that, though lacking visible labels, bnodes have
>identity and different bnodes may be distinguished, and a single bnode may
>appear in more than one subject or object position in a graph, but it's
>easy to get confused.
>
>Maybe, add something like this explanatory text to the definition?:
>
>[[
>A bnode has no discernable structure other than, given two bnodes, it is
>possible to determine whether or not they are the same.  (For the purpose
>of representing RDF graphs as text, bnodes may be assigned arbitrary labels
>so that different bnodes may be distinguished;  such labels are simply a
>means of representation and are not part of any RDF graph in which the
>bnode appears.)
>]]
>
>I have added
>[[
>Given two blank nodes, it is
>possible to determine whether or not they are the same.
>]]
>
>since the rest of the para is already covered elsewhere (either in 6.6 or 3.2
>- leaving bnode identifiers only informative in the abstract syntax)

I think that addresses the main point, and accept that for now.  (I may 
change my mind when I do a full document review, but I don't expect to.)

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 06:11:28 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:56 EDT