Re: LC response regarding DM Appendix A.4?

* Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> [2012-01-31 16:00+0000]
> 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 ;-)

Yes, but I'll back that "yes" up with a quote and an MID:
[[
done.

Also updated Appendix A to offload the definitions of "natural RDF
literal" and "canonical RDF literal" to R2RML. Diffs will be linked
from the "LC Status and implementation reports" thread.
]] http://www.w3.org/mid/20120126131620.GB14015@w3.org

> Cheers,
> Richard
> 
> 
> > > Appendix A.4, using set-builder notation:
> > >
> > > Rule [44] still includes an editorial comment
> > >
> > > //@@ I can't explain why this was:....

I remember if I responded to this, but it is gone.


> > > 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.

-- 
-ericP

Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2012 16:20:42 UTC