W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2004

Re: rdf mediatype sanity check

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:12:55 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040302102902.00bb0d60@127.0.0.1>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

[After consultation with Brian, this message is being copied to the working 
group -- if anyone has any objection, please speak up quickly -- within a 
couple of days.  The changes proposed here are, in my view, merely 
editorial clarifications of what has already been agreed.  It is my hope 
and expectation that these will be viewed as non-material clarifications 
and that we can proceed rapidly to I-D publication and hence to request 
final publication and registration of the MIME type.]

Hi Aaron,

re:  http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-04.txt

It looks pretty good to me.  With the passage of time, a some small 
suggestions have emerged:

A nit, which I should probably have noticed before, in section 4:
[[
However, in RDF, the thing identified by a URI with fragment identifier 
does not bear any particular relationship to the thing identified by the 
URI alone.
]]
I suggest inserting "necessarily" before "bear any particular 
relationship..."  I'm also speaking with Martin Duerst about this sentence 
(it turns out some of his editorial comments in the last call period were 
not actioned).  We (Martin and I) agree that it would be better to drop the 
"However".  The resulting sentence would then be:
[[
In RDF, the thing identified by a URI with fragment identifier does not 
necessarily bear any particular relationship to the thing identified by the 
URI alone.
]]

Another small change we'd like to request:  in the final sentence of 
section 4, change "view" to "treatment", thus:
[[
More details on RDF's treatment of fragment identifiers can be found in the 
section "Fragment Identifiers" of the RDF Concepts document[2].
]]

And a purely stylistic matter:  your section 1 (Discussion of this 
Document) will likely be removed in RFC publication.  My usual approach to 
this is to include it as a <note> in the front of the XML2RFC source;  e.g.
[[
    :
     <abstract>
       <t>This document defines (blah blah)
         </t>
     </abstract>

     <note title="Discussion of this document">
       <t>Please send comments to (blah blah)
         </t>
     </note>
   </front>
    :
]]

#g
--

At 14:10 01/03/04 -0600, you wrote:
>Can you sanity check this for me?
>
>http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-04.xml
>http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/draft-swartz-rdfcore-rdfxml-mediatype-04.txt
>
>If you think it looks OK, I'll send it off to I-D editor.
>--
>Aaron Swartz: http://www.aaronsw.com/

------------
Graham Klyne
For email:
http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Wednesday, 3 March 2004 07:29:55 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 March 2004 07:29:56 EST