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

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

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:01:24 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F04A07317@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Graham Klyne'" <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Hi Graham,

> >10) Section 7, 2nd Para: "These apparently conflicting views can be
....

> I'll need to look at this.  There's been another comment which suggests a 
> misreading of this section.  Are you content for me to take this as a
minor 
> editorial issue for review, or would you like a formal WG response?
> 
> #g

I am content for you to treat this as an editorial issue. I believe that the
paragraph does say what you intended it to say... it just took me several
readings to get there. I've tried to debug my human parser failure in the
comment... I think that the heart of the problem is the length of the first
sentence that probably needs to be broken in to smaller bites.

I am happy to review/comment on redrafts if you would find that helpful, but
I don't feel I need a formal WG response.

BR

Stuart
--


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 25 February 2003 13:56
> To: Williams, Stuart
> Cc: 'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
> 
> 
> Picking up the points Jeremy defered to me...
> 
> At 05:30 PM 2/12/03 +0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> >1) Section 3.1 "Graph Data Model" 1st para: Editorial
> >Last sentence begins:
> >
> >"The RDF graph is a set of triples:" suggest s/The/An/
> 
> OK, I'll note that as a minor editorial fix.  (No issue 
> needed, I think.)
> 
> [...]
> 
> >10) Section 7, 2nd Para: "These apparently conflicting views can be
> >reconciled by considering that, in an RDF graph, any RDF URI 
> Reference
> >consisting of an absolute URI and a fragment identifier 
> identifies the same
> >thing as the fragment identifier does in an application/rdf+xml
> >[RDF-MIME-TYPE] representation of the resource identified by 
> the absolute
> >URI component. Thus:..."
> >
> >This is a hard paragraph to get right and clear. I think is 
> is possible to
> >both read and mis-read its intent, I certainly did the 
> latter first and on
> >further re-reading found I could also read it as I think it 
> was intended.
> >The misreading probably stems from the length of the first 
> sentence and the
> >phrase "...a fragment identifier identifies the same thing 
> as a fragment
> >identifier does in an application/rdf+xml 
> representation...". Without the
> >final clause "...of the resource identified by ther absolute 
> URI component."
> >it gives the impression that the "fragment identifier" is 
> viewed as occuring
> >within an RDF/XML document, pointing out (which is backward 
> because the
> >application/rdf+xml applies to the thing being pointed from 
> (referee) rather
> >than the thing being pointed at (referent)). However, 
> somewhat late in the
> >process of parsing the sentence, the last clause switches 
> ends, to it being
> >a (hypothesised) RDF/XML representation of the referent with 
> the graph as
> >referee.
> >
> >I think I have concluded that the sentence does indeed say 
> what I think it
> >was intended to say, but it does take several readings for 
> it to take on
> >that meaning.
> 
> I'll need to look at this.  There's been another comment which suggests a 
> misreading of this section.  Are you content for me to take this as a
minor 
> editorial issue for review, or would you like a formal WG response?
> 
> #g
> 
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:01:45 GMT

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