W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Issues danc-01 and danc-02 Re: 2 formalities in RDF concepts

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:44:34 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20030128093941.0540f9e0@localhost>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

At 18:00 27/01/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:

>re http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/
>
>I'm going over it with a fairly fine-tooth comb,
>updating my larch stuff.
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFAbSyn.lsl
>
>I found 2 bugs:
>
>     % 6.3 Graph Equality
>     % REVIEW: if this is really equality/identity
>     % (and I think the model theory sees it as such)
>     % then a graph isn't just a set of triples;
>     % it's an equivalence class of sets of triples
>
>if a graph is a set of triples, then graphs are
>equal when they contain the same triples, full stop.
>Not so. Pls fix.

Recorded

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01


>2ndly...
>
>specification of literals is goofy... "A literal in an RDF graph
>   contains three components called: ...
>   The datatype URI being an RDF URI reference. ...
>   A plain literal is one in which the datatype URI is absent."
>Hello? you just told me every literal has one.
>
>Specify that the datatype URI and language identifier
>are optional.

Recorded

   http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01


>see also weblog notes...
>   http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/01/27/2003-01-27.html#1043707824.268497
>
>and my notes about larch...
>   http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/#about-larch
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 04:43:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT