Re: rdf11-concepts WD ready


Thanks for these comments from back in May, that I now finally addressed.

Your comments were tracked under ISSUE-91, which I will mark as PENDINGREVIEW as I believe they are addressed.

On 30 May 2012, at 01:02, Gavin Carothers wrote:
> There are sections like
> which seem to completely overwhelm their content with notes. Any time
> a note immediately follows a note there is likely room for
> improvement. Also the text doesn't seem to go a whole subsection
> without another note. Doesn't really need to be addressed before a new
> WD is published.

I've raised ISSUE-104 for this, and added an issue marker to the document.

> Graph isomorphism seems an odd (poor) choice of the first thing
> mentioned in the 3 RDF Graphs section. Should likely come after
> defining a blank node or it's not going to make any sense.

I've moved the definition of graph isomorphism into its own subsection at the end of the RDF Graphs section.

> "Every absolute URI and URL is an IRI" ... this is a bold statement
> which should be true but uh... perhaps I'll just let that one sit
> there.


I'll pretend that paragraph isn't there.

> XML 1.1 many things are said about XML 1.1 ... I don't think any of
> those statements mater as there are no implementations of XML 1.1 and
> the number of people likely to care about RDF/XML in XML 1.1 is zero.
> Now XML 1.0 5th Edition...

I think all mentions of XML 1.1 are inherited from the 2004 version of the spec. I prefer to deal with this as part of the potential Note pruning implied by ISSUE-104.


Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 21:25:47 UTC