W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Concepts (almost) ready

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:39:58 +0000
Message-Id: <DAA8FF86-8C1F-47A6-BAD2-125D8530E3A8@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

> On 17 Dec 2013, at 05:25, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> 1.5 "It does not deal with time, and..." I think this is better omitted. It could be misunderstood as denying the following paragraph. The rest of the sentence says what needs to be said more clearly. 

Would be fine with me.

> ?? 1.6  Might it be helpful to put an informative reference to Antoine's semantic survey right after "There are many possible uses for RDF datasets." ?

+1, the document should absolutely be referenced somewhere,

> 4.  "Blank nodes MAY be shared between graphs in an RDF dataset."  Um, I now see that this can be understood in different ways. What I think (hope) is intended here is, that if the same bnodeID is used in two graph documents in the same dataset, then that means that those two graphs do share a bnode. But what it could be read as saying is that whether or not they share the bnode is optional: they might or they might not. Which would be a very unfortunate reading. 

You are right.

How about simply lowercasing the MAY? It's not meant as something that's optional for conformance, but simply to indicate a possibility. So, MAY in the RFC2119 sense is inappropriate.

Alternatively, “can be shared”.

> [[IMPORTANT]]  In the Note:  "... the graph name does not formally denote the graph."  This is wrong as stated, and kind of dangerous in a normative section as it seems to prohibit graph names from *ever* denoting graphs. Also the use of "formally" seems to suggest two kinds of denotation (formal and informal) which is misleading. Any of these alternatives would work:
> the graph name need not denote the graph.
> the graph name is not required to denote the graph.
> RDF does not require the graph name to denote the graph.

I like the last two options.

I agree that all of these are editorial clarifications.

Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 09:40:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC