W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > June 2005

Fwd: inconcistency in CBD definition in Updated specification of Concise Bounded Descriptions

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 20:00:55 +0300
Message-ID: <27bcfba6050605100015100e52@mail.gmail.com>
To: em@w3.org
Cc: art.barstow@w3.org

Eric,

It seems that there is a single word error (my fault) in 
the recently published revision of the CBD submission.

Note that it was a copy error from the original submission
and the original submission reflects the correct text.

How painful would it be to make that small correction?

Are we looking at 6 more months and a full team review?

Given the challenges faced with this recent update, I both
hesitate and apologize for making this request.

Patrick



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 5, 2005 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: inconcistency in CBD definition in Updated specification
of Concise Bounded Descriptions
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org


I point out that the text in the previous submission states
"This results in an RDF graph where the terminal nodes are ..."

Granted, an editorial error is an editorial error, and I agree that
the new text is not correct.

I will ask the W3C if/when the single word might be corrected.
One can only hope that this would not be an arduous process.

Patrick



On 6/5/05, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/5/05, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> > From http://www.w3.org/Submission/2005/SUBM-CBD-20050603/
> >
> > ************
> >
> > Definition:
> >
> >     Given a particular node (the starting node) in a particular RDF graph
> >     (the source graph), a subgraph of that particular graph, taken to
> >     comprise a concise bounded description of the resource denoted by the
> >     starting node, can be identified as follows:
> >
> >        1. Include in the subgraph all statements in the source graph where
> >           the subject of the statement is the starting node;
> >        2. Recursively, for all statements identified in the subgraph thus
> >           far having a blank node object, include in the subgraph all
> >           statements in the source graph where the subject of the statement
> >           is the blank node in question and which are not already included
> >           in the subgraph.
> >        3. Recursively, for all statements included in the subgraph thus
> >           far, for all reifications of each statement in the source graph,
> >           include the concise bounded description beginning from the
> >           rdf:Statement node of each reification.
> >
> >     This results in a subgraph where the object nodes are either URI
> >     references, literals, or blank nodes not serving as the subject of any
> >     statement in the graph.
> >
> > ************
> >
> > How can
> >
> >         for all statements [included?] in the subgraph thus far having a
> >         blank node object, include in the subgraph all statements in the
> >         source graph where the subject of the statement is the blank node
> >         in question ...
> >
> > and
> >
> >         This results in a subgraph where the object nodes are [...], or
> >         blank nodes not serving as the subject of any statement in the
> >         graph.
> >
> > possibly be reconciled?
> >
>
> Hmmm... it seems there was an editorial error here. The original text
> (or at least the original intent) was "This results in a subgraph where
> the *terminal* nodes are...".
>
> It is quite true that the present text is not correct -- though in any case
> the definition itself is correct.
>
> Given the amount of time it took to get this revision published, and
> given that the W3C seems to have no reasonable process for fixing
> even the smallest typo or error, I don't anticipate it being corrected
> in the near future.
>
> Hopefully it will not prove too distracting and troublesome.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> >
>
Received on Sunday, 5 June 2005 17:01:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:52 GMT