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

Re: pfps-15 say anything quote

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:04:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030806.180453.08253134.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

The changes to RDF Primer make it much better in this area.  

I would put the caveat paragraph for containers earlier in that section, to
make it more prominent.  Similarly for collections, reification, and
rdf:value. 

I wish that the Primer didn't use URI references without fragment IDs so
much.  I think that it would also be a good idea to use the redirected
versions of the DC elements, as they are URI references with fragment
identifiers.

peter


From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: pfps-15 say anything quote
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2003 13:05:24 -0400

> Peter--
> 
> Now that you have completed your review of the Concepts document with
> respect to issues 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-22
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-23
> 
> would it be in order to revisit the issue of the corresponding comment
> about the Primer, recorded as issue
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15?  I believe
> the current version of the Primer, at
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/Overview.html,
> is stable.  Please reply to this message, copying
> www-rdf-comments@w3.org, indicating whether you accept the resolution of
> comment pfps-15.
> 
> --Frank
> 
> Frank Manola wrote:
> > 
> > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> > > Subject: pfps-15 say anything quote
> > > Date: 30 Jul 2003 14:34:31 +0100
> > >
> > > > Peter,
> > > >
> > > > This message concerns a last call comment you made about the RDF Primer
> > > > recorded as:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15
> > > >
> > > > The RDFCore WG accepted your comment and the editor responded to you
> > > >
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0502.html
> > > >
> > > > You replied, indicating some disatisfaction with the WG process for
> > > > handling comments
> > > >
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0558.html
> > > >
> > > > We are now, I hope close to moving the documents on to the next stage.
> > > > An updated editor's draft of the primer is available at:
> > > >
> > > > //www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/Overview.html
> > > >
> > > > Please can you reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org,
> > > > indicating whether you accept the disposition of comment pfps-15.
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > >
> > > My ``say anything'' comment originates in
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003janMar/0148.html.
> > > This message mentions portions of Primer and Concepts that I feel are
> > > contradictory.  I need to review both Primer and Concepts to determine
> > > whether this comment has been adequately addressed.
> > 
> > Peter--
> > 
> > I understand.  I believe the corresponding issues in the Concepts
> > document are
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-22
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-23
> > 
> > However, it would be helpful to know if there is something amiss with
> > the specific changes in the Primer made in response to your comments.
> > 
> > >
> > > I don't know the status of Concepts, but Primer (Last Call Revised Editor's
> > > Draft 21 July 2003) prominently states that it ``is in an interim state, is
> > > frequently changing, and the changes made have not necessarily been agreed
> > > to by the RDF Core Working Group.''  This indicates to me that it is not in
> > > a state suitable for review.
> > 
> > The disclaimer you refer to necessarily refers to the whole document.
> > However, I'm not aware of any pending changes to those specific sections
> > affected by your comments, and there probably won't be changes, unless
> > you yourself think changes are needed.  (There may be some changes to
> > Section 4.5, which is a new section, and some of the example numbers
> > need to change as a result of the introduction of that section, but
> > nothing else that I'm aware of).  We wouldn't have asked for your
> > comments on those sections unless we felt they were stable enough for
> > you to reasonably review.
> > 
> > I'd also note that, in this new version, I have attempted to address not
> > only the specific issue you raised in pfps-15, but your comments (in
> > many cases pre-last-call) on a number of other issues (the specific
> > issues are listed in the "Changes" section at the end of the Primer;
> > these issues are linked to the corresponding places in the Primer where
> > the changes have been made).  You may also want to review the other
> > changes listed in the Comments section of the Primer corresponding to
> > the other comments you have made.
> > 
> > >
> > > I await stable versions of both Concepts and Primer that are suitable for
> > > review.
> > >
> > 
> > OK
> > 
> > --Frank
> > 
> > --
> > Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
> > 202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
> > mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
> 
> -- 
> Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
> 202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
> mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:06:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:32 GMT