internal links N-Quads

Gavin,

I did some edits to the N-Quads source:

* I removed the following internal links, as I could not see a clear 
target:
    #string
    #sec-escapes
    #numeric
* I changed  #grammar-production-RDFLiteral to 
#grammar-production-literal (this appeared to be an error)
* I changed #grammar-production-STRING-LITERAL2 to 
#grammar-production-STRING-LITERAL-QUOTE (I assume this was also an 
error) and added a link to the corresponding grammar rule.
* I included a ref to Turtle
* I changed the relative URI references of RDF Concepts to absolute ones 
(to the WD version).

Just for the record.

Guus


>
> I assume they should be similar to the corresponding ones from N-Triples.
>
> Guus
>
> On 06-04-13 02:56, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> Gavin,
>>
>> N-Triples is now fine, except for 8 internal links which I'm not sure
>> where they should point to, see below. It would be a great help if you
>> could fix these in the source file.
>>
>> I'll check N-Quads tomorrow.
>>
>> Guus
>>
>>   #terms
>>   #string
>>   #grammar-production-RDFLiteral
>>   #prod-ntriples-triple
>>   #sec-escapes
>>   #predicate-lists
>>   #sec-grammar
>>   #numeric
>>
>>
>> On 05-04-13 22:12, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>> Hi Gavin,
>>>
>>> I corrected the TriG document tonight. It still had quite a number of
>>> errors. I had to chancge a few things in the trig-bnf.html. If you're
>>> generating this file automatically, you might have to change the source
>>> (but looking at the bnf source, this doesn't seem to be tha case.
>>>
>>> The result is at:
>>>
>>>    https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/drafts/trig/Overview.html
>>>
>>> I know the US is a religious country, but I assumed you didn;t really
>>> mean to insert a "providence" example, so I changed that to "provenance"
>>> :).
>>>
>>> Sandro/Ivan: the HTML validator generates errors for the RDFa
>>> attributes, but I assume that will be OK with the Webmaster?!
>>>
>>> Have a good weekend,
>>> Guus
>>>
>>> On 04-04-13 19:48, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04-04-13 19:46, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>>>>> Yep, I know. I just haven't had a chance to get to these. We have a
>>>>> round of due diligence and a major release scheduled for next Tuesday.
>>>>
>>>> Undestood. Let me know in case it wont' work vefore Tuesday, as 9
>>>> Apr is
>>>> the next publication date. If not, I will have a go in the weekend.
>>>>
>>>> Guus
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl
>>>>> <mailto:guus.schreiber@vu.nl>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Gavin,
>>>>>
>>>>>     The three documents still have problems with pub rules, apart from
>>>>>     the ReSpec issues. Could you please check the errata in Sec. 7 of
>>>>>     the report generated by the purules checker [1]? These are mainly
>>>>>     broken fragment links.  Hopefully it won't take much of your time.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>>     Guus
>>>>>
>>>>>     []1 http://www.w3.org/2005/07/__pubrules
>>>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 6 April 2013 16:34:54 UTC