- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 14:33:30 +0000
- CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 16:37 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: comment on wording at beginning of SPARQL Query Language for RDF >> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 15:04:29 -0600 >> >>> On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 15:32 -0500, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>> I just started reading >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20060220/ >>>> >>>> and was brought up short by the poor wording at its very beginning: >>>> >>>> An RDF graph is a set of triples; each triple consists of a subject, a >>>> predicate and an object. This is defined in RDF Concepts and Abstract >>>> Syntax [CONCEPTS]. These triples can come from a variety of sources. >>> >>> Perhaps I have just read it too many times, but I can't see anything >>> wrong with that wording. >> The referent of the "This" could be one of any number of things. It could the >> "RDF graph", "triple", "set of triples", "subject", "predicate', or "object". >> There are even other possibilities for the referent of "This". > > I see now. Thanks. I have changed "This is" to read "RDF Graphs are" making it: """ An RDF graph is a set of triples; each triple consists of a subject, a predicate and an object. RDF graphs are defined in RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax [CONCEPTS]. """ > >>>> Surely better wording can be generated, particularly at this important part of >>>> the document. >>> Do you have any improvements to suggest? >> Yes, certainly. However, the improvement depends on the meaning of the excerpt, >> which I cannot discern. > > OK. Please stay tuned for a substantive reply. I hope this addresses your comment - please let us know if it does Andy
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 14:34:07 UTC