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

Re: proposed response to [minor errors in WD-rdf-primer-20030905]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:36:20 +0000
Message-ID: <3FB20D24.9040102@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

Frank,

These are all editorial and you have discretion to make them.

Brian


Frank Manola wrote:
> 
> I propose that the comments in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0038.html
> are editorial, and that I send the following reply:
> 
> Sven--
> 
> Thanks again for your comments. Here is a summary of the changes I 
> propose to make to the Primer in response to your comments:
> 
>  > made affect ->
>  > may affect
> 
> The text you want corrected is in boilerplate that was used in all the 
> last call RDF documents, not just the Primer.  The text is only 
> applicable to these last call documents, and hence will not appear in 
> the next published version of the Primer (or the other documents). Hence 
> I propose to leave this text alone for now, since it will get fixed 
> "automatically" when the next versions are published.
> 
>  > property interpret ->
>  > properly interpret
> 
> As I noted earlier, this change had been made in the 10 October Last 
> Call Primer version.
> 
>  > may not used ->
>  > may not be used
> 
> This change will be made as you suggest.
> 
>  > as normatively defined in ->
>  > are normatively defined in
> 
> I propose to change
> "and certain other concepts to be described later, as normatively 
> defined in"
> 
> to
> 
> "and certain other concepts to be described later. These things are 
> normatively defined in"
> 
>  > provides no additional meaning that such a program can directly use ->
>  > ? the object referred to by "such a program" is unclear and very remote
> 
> I propose to change
> "provides no additional meaning that such a program can directly use"
> 
> to
> 
> "provides no additional meaning that an arbitrary RDF application can 
> directly use"
> referring to "an arbitrary RDF application" which has been mentioned in 
> the two preceding paragraphs.
> 
>  > month, day, and year ->
>  > (illogical order; I know: some don't like logic :-) )
> 
> As I noted earlier, I don't propose to change this order;  this conforms 
> to American usage, and particularly to the order of the components of 
> the exterms:creation-date property in a previous example, in which the 
> components are written in month, day, and year order ("August 16, 1999").
> 
>  > later in this section). ->
>  > later in this section.)
> 
>  > in explaining the example). ->
>  > in explaining the example.)
> 
> In response to these last two suggestions (and our subsequent 
> discussion) what I propose to do is this:
> 
> Where the parenthetical material is subordinate to another sentence 
> (even when the parenthetical material has the form of a complete 
> sentence), I'm going to leave it alone.  This includes the two cases 
> you've cited above.
> 
> Where the parenthetical material is a stand-alone sentence, with the 
> first word capitalized, as in the case you cited of
> 
> "(Line numbers are added to help in explaining the example)."
> 
> I'll move the closing period inside the parentheses (there are several 
> places where this change would be made).
> 
> Please reply cc-ing www-rdf-comments indicating whether these changes 
> are acceptable.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> --Frank
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 05:39:48 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 12 November 2003 05:39:55 EST