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

Re: concepts updated

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 11:21:43 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030620111825.0239b5a0@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Heads-up...

I'm about 2/3 through my detailed review.  Generally I think it's looking 
very good.

I do have a number of comments, mostly minor and many purely minor 
editorial, which I plan to submit before the telecon.

However, I suggest that we treat the 19 June 2003 editors' draft as the 
basis for any discussions today, rather than chasing a moving target.

#g
--

At 13:11 19/06/03 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>I have now republished with changes from Graham and Pat.
>
>I think the current version is ready for WG review, although if Graham 
>gets me any further changes before the telecon tomorrow I will include them.
>
>I list the latest changes below (the very last one is possibly the most 
>interesting, concerning synonyms for XMLLiteral).
>
>Patrick:
> >>> "The datatype abstraction used in RDF is compatible with
> >>>  XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes..."
>
>Pat on datatypes:
> > That reads OK to me also as a first sentence, although you might want to
> > qualify it pretty quickly since we explicitly rule out some of the XMLS
> > datatypes as being incompatible.
>
>I now have " ... is compatible with the abstraction used in XML Schema ..."
>
>I also explicitly say at end
>
>"[RDF-SEMANTICS] contains a more detailed discussion of specific XML 
>Schema built-in datatypes."
>
>If Pat could provide an anchor on the table of XSD datatypes then I would 
>link directly to that.
>
>gk:
> > 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.
> > ]]
>
>
> > should be revised to say something like
> > "... identifies the relationship between the things represented by the 
> nodes it connects"
>
>I did this and also changed from "the relationship" to "a relationship"
>
>
>jeremy concerning semantics:
> > Are the following two phrases from concepts OK or should they be changed:
> >
> > a)
> >
> > "A datatype is identified by a URI."
> >
> > b)
> > concerning XMLLiteral
> >
> > "The datatype URI
> > is http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral."
> >
> > possible change to a) is e.g.
> > "A datatype may be identified by one or more URI references"
>
>The new text is:
>"A datatype is identified by one or more URI references"
>
>which excludes a free floating datatype with no URI but makes no unique 
>names assumption. I beleive this agrees with semantics.
>
> >
> > possible change to b) is e.g.
> >
> > "A datatype URI reference
> > is http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#XMLLiteral."
> > or
> > "The preferred URI reference
> > is ..."
> >
>
>The new text reads:
>"A URI reference for identifying this datatype
>is ..."
>
>Brian reminds me:
> > 2002-11-22#5      jjc      check that RDF Concepts does not allow a
> > synonym for rdf:XMLLiteral
>
>
>The text above is intended to allow a synonym, without actually saying so 
>explicitly. If the WG believes this detail does need explicit text I have 
>a weak preference for it to go in semantics.
>
>Jeremy
>

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 06:24:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:58 EDT