- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:00:38 +0000
- To: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDB2RDF <public-rdb2rdf-wg@w3.org>
Eric, did you formally respond to this LC comment from Ivan? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdb2rdf-comments/2011Nov/0025.html In particular did you address the two questions quoted below? I believe this is fixed in the DM ED, but would like to have an explicit confirmation for the records. A “Yes” is sufficient ;-) Cheers, Richard > > Appendix A.4, using set-builder notation: > > > > Rule [44] still includes an editorial comment > > > > //@@ I can't explain why this was:.... > > > > Also: I must admit I did not have the time to check the whole thing in > > detail, but I do not see where the predicate URI-s using 'ref-XXXX-YYY' are > > created. Are you sure the 'ref-' prefix is indeed part of the definition? > > Should that be in [38]? > > > > Eric, Alexandre: can you respond to this. > > > > > ---- > > Appendix A.4, using set notation > > > > I have the impression that [36] is wrong in the sense that it was not > > adapted to the latest version of the URI construction (still using '=' > > sign...) > > > > Also, the same question on the 'ref-XXX-YYY' as for the previous version. > > Note also that the English text misses the 'ref-' string, too. Here again, > > it should be [38], shouldn't it? > > > > Eric, Alexandre: can you respond to this.
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 16:01:21 UTC