W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2012

Fwd: Comments on abstract syntax document

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:40:39 +0100
Cc: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <250E02AD-45A4-4E2F-BA29-6B9D2F37EDEA@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
FYI, in case you are not on the rdf-comments mailing list (b.t.w., I think all editors of documents should...)


Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
> From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
> Subject: Comments on abstract syntax document
> Date: March 11, 2012 01:57:58 GMT+01:00
> To: public-rdf-comments@w3.org
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4F5BF896.1030206@koeln.de>
> List-Id: <public-rdf-comments.w3.org>
> Hi,
> I just gave the draft for the new abstract syntax document at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf-concepts/index.html a first read and I noticed a couple of things. I know this is work-in-progress rather than a public working draft but maybe these things haven't come up yet. :-)
> Property is defined twice and the two definitions seem to be incompatible.
> Under "1.2 Resources and Statements" it says "The predicate itself is an IRI and denotes a binary relation, also known as a property." (#dfn-property)
> Under "4.1 Triples" it says "The predicate is also known as the property of the triple." (#dfn-property-1)
> Either the predicate denotes the property or it is the property.
> Under "4.3 Literals" it says "a lexical form being a Unicode [UNICODE] string, which should be in Normal Form C [NFC]".
> The "should" lost its markup, so <em class="rfc2119" title="should">should</em>.
> Under "5.4 The Value Corresponding to a Literal" it says "If the literal's datatype IRI is not in the datatype map, then the literal value is not defined by this specification."
> Which datatype map is that? It says "the" so it must be a specific one rather than any.
> Under "7. Fragment Identifiers" it says "For example, if the fragment #chapter1 identifies a document section in an HTML representation of a primary resource, then #chapter1 should be taken to denote that same section in all RDF-bearing representations of the same primary resource." and "Likewise, RDF graphs embedded in non-RDF representations with mechanism such as RDFa [RDFA-PRIMER] should use fragment identifiers consistently with the semantics imposed by the host language."
> However I can just use a fragment identifier to denote arbitrary things both in RDFa in HTML and in, say, a Turtle document at a URL which can also conneg to HTML, as long as it is not used as an id on an element in the HTML, right? Could this section explicitly state that? Because I think that was one of the concerns people had about using them.
> Thanks,
>  Simon

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Sunday, 11 March 2012 10:40:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:12 UTC