- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 00:25:08 -0400
- To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- cc: phayes@ihmc.us, der@hplb.hpl.hp.com, public-rdf-text@w3.org
> > Those both sound pretty good to me, but I'm easy to please. Peter,
> > Dave, are either of them improvements? Anything else we need to do at
> > this point?
>
> I still think that "which allows plain literals can be treated in
> certain cases like typed literals" has to go. I would just remove the
> clause.
I removed it, and slightly tightened to nearby wording.
> Section 4 may need a bit of change. I would go for "syntaxes for SPARQL
> basic graphs patterns" changing to "SPARQL syntaxes". The last sentence
> of the section also should be changed in my view.
I took at stab at both those changes.
Well, I took a first stab [1], and then took some more serious wacks at
it. I think I made section 4 somewhat clearer, without changing the
meaning. I'm praying you also find it an improvement....
> > I'm filing the OWL request for CR today, optimistically including
> > rdf:PlainLiteral. My hope is that everyone can sign off on this text by
> > next Wednesday, and this can go to CR with the rest of the OWL specs.
>
> Optimist!
Well, yeah. If we get it done in this round (ie the next few days),
then we'll have it done!
-- Sandro
[1] intermediate version, in case the final version overly displeases
you and you want something closer to your wording:
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Rdf:PlainLiteral&oldid=24299#Syntax_for_rdf:PlainLiteral_Literals
Received on Sunday, 31 May 2009 04:25:15 UTC