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

Re: pfps-15 say anything quote

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 15:45:25 -0400
Message-ID: <3F32AC55.1020709@mitre.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-rdf-comments@w3.org

Peter--

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

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


Thanks.


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


In general, I've been reluctant to put the caveat paragraphs too early 
in these sections, because it's hard (and also, I think, less effective) 
to explain what the problems are without having introduced enough of the 
vocabulary and concepts to hang the explanation on.

Having said that though, I think you've got a good point regarding 
reification;  the first sign of a caveat is pretty late.  I'm going to 
put an additional caveat paragraph, as an initial warning, as the third 
paragraph in that section (right after the one that says RDF provides a 
built-in vocabulary for it, and just before starting to use the 
vocabulary), and retain the fuller caveat material where it is.

In the case of containers, there are a number of caveat paragraphs, and 
the first of them is really pretty early:  just after the introduction 
of the container vocabulary itself.  It seems to me that's early enough 
to alert people, and there are further caveat paragraphs when discussing 
some of the specific container forms as well.

In the case of collections, the caveat material starts right after the 
initial example (and, in fact, takes up about half the section).

The caveat about rdf:value is right at the end of the section, but once 
again that is directly following the example illustrating the use of 
rdf:value (the rdf:value property itself isn't actually introduced until 
half-way through the section, due to the need to explain the application 
problem first).


> 
> 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.


It seems to me there'a reasonable distribution of both kinds of URIrefs, 
and since both kinds are legal, and the WG hasn't taken an offical 
position (as far as I know) on this issue, I thought I'd better be 
"unbiased" in the Primer (Syntax is similarly "unbiased").

I'm not sure what you mean about "the redirected versions of the DC 
elements".  As far as I know, the official URI assigned to the DC terms 
continues to not use fragment IDs, e.g., 
http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title.  Can you clarify?

--Frank


> 
> 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
>>
> 


-- 
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 Thursday, 7 August 2003 15:24:49 GMT

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