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

Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:07:20 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com

At 17:48 20/02/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> >
> > 5) 6.1 RDF Triples: (picky)
> >
> > The 3 bullets use language that indicate that the subject, predicate and
> > object of an RDF triple may each be an "RDF URI Reference" rather than the
> > thing that the "RDF URI Reference" identifies/denotes. This is symptomatic
> > of the same 'complaint' as comment 2) above. It may be a conscious 
> choice of
> > the WG/Editors to speak directly of nodes and properties being URI rather
> > than the things that such identifiers denote/identify - just doesn't mesh
> > with my mental model of RDF (which I'm willing to accept may be flawed).
>Aspects of this problem have been discussed by the
>WG on the 7th Feb.
>We are trying to clearly distinguish discussion of the
>syntactic structures (triples nodes urirefs) from discussion
>of the semantic concerns (statements and resources).
>However, there are numerous editorial errors which we
>are currently trying to fix.
>This seems extensive enough to require an issue ID.
>Brian is there one already?
>However, if the proposal in item 8:
>does not address your issue then we will need to give
>this further consideration.
>Please indicate whether the planned editorial correction
>to uniformly use the syntactic language you did not like meets
>your comment.

There is no comment id for this at present.  I'm holding off allocating one 
till we get a response from Stuart as to whether he is satisfied by your 

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:51:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:20 UTC