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

Re: Please Review: RDFCore WG new specs (2003-11-05), esp. w.r.t. I18N and XMLLiteral

From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:21:47 -0500
Message-Id: <p06001f29bb9a4c611743@[]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

>From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
>Subject: Re: Please Review: RDFCore WG new specs 
>(2003-11-05), esp. w.r.t. I18N and XMLLiteral
>Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:48:39 -0400
>>  A reminder: please take a look at these Working Drafts. The WG is in the
>>  process of preparing for a second Last Call phase, consolidating 
>>  changes made in response to feedback received during our earlier LC and
>>  subsequently. If you have additional comments to make on these drafts,
>>  please send them to www-rdf-comments in time for our teleconference next
>>  week (ie. by 2nd Oct).
>>  Many thanks,
>>  Dan
>Hmm.  I note that there are more-recent editors' drafts available for
>several of these documents.  Any reviews that I do will be against these
>editors' drafts.

You might want to look at the most recent version of semantics at


which has the Lbase appendix purged from it, 
which may come as a relief. This is a WG decision 
as of today.  Paragraph 5 in section 0.1 has been 
modified appropriately to refer to the Lbase 
note; I have used this hold the various 
references to other axiomatic-semantics 
proposals, which I want to keep in the document 
on general grounds of scholarship. Note the last 
sentence, which is intended to be what Brian 
refers to as 'fire-proof'.  Otherwise, apart from 
re-numbering the appendices and adding the change 
log, its the same as the published version.

I expect to have an updated version of the Lbase 
note ready by Monday, if you want to look at it. 
BTW, if you plan to check the proofs appendix 
(now A), there may be some changes to that by 
Monday also. I have no current plans to change 
the rest of the text.

>The first jarring note in my reading of RDF Semantics
>(http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes/RDF_Semantics_LC2.html, version of 16
>September 2003) is that Figure 1 still (again?) is internally inconsistent.
>It uses `Thing 1' and `Thing 2' as its domain of discourse but states that
>``1 is the only property in the set IP''.

Still, not again.  Right. We discussed this 
previously and I told you that this was an 
editorial decision and that the figure was not 
likely, in my opinion, to give rise to any 
misunderstanding, particularly given the 
discussion in the surrounding text.  I note in 
passing that no other readers of the document 
have ever remarked on this point or considered it 
jarring; whereas some readers have found it odd 
to be told that items in a universe could be 
integers, hence some of the warning prose in the 


IHMC	(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501			(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 26 September 2003 16:22:04 UTC

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