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

RE: Comments on RDF Concepts

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:23:37 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01fa01ce7801$4b26d6a0$e17483e0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:24 PM, David Wood wrote:
> > Can we drop the "universe of discourse" or replace it with something a
> > more common?
> I have changed the first use to:
> [[
> Any IRI or literal denotes some thing in the real or virtual worlds
> (the "universe of discourse").
> ]]
> Does that work for everyone?


> >    In some contexts it is common to abbreviate IRIs that start with
> >    namespace IRIs by using the associated namespace prefix.
> >
> > In which contexts? It probably better to say that in some
> > situations/contexts it is easier/beneficial/... because it makes the
> data
> > more readable.
> Sure.  I changed it to:
> [[
> In some serialization formats it is common to abbreviate IRIs that
> start with namespace IRIs by using the associated namespace prefix in
> order to assist readability.
> ]]
> Does that work for you?

Yes, although it sounds like the namespace prefix is predefined. Could we
change "using the associated..." to "using a..."

> > Can we add JSON-LD to the list of concrete RDF syntaxes in section
> 1.8 RDF
> > Documents and Syntaxes?
> Yes!  Good catch.
> However, the reference needs an update and mine didn't seem to take.
> Can someone tell me why?

You are using heavily outdated version of ReSpec. Just change

  <script src='../ReSpec.js/js/respec.js' class='remove'></script>


 <script src="http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common"

This should fix it for you.

> > Can we (re)move sections 1.7 Equivalence, Entailment and
> Inconsistency and
> > 3.6 Graph Isomorphism, and 4.1 RDF Dataset Isomorphism (to
> Semantics)?
> I appreciate what you are trying to do with regards to simplifying the
> document.  There are some separations between the Primer, Concepts and
> Semantics that appear to be rather arbitrary and this is certainly one.
> However, I am reluctant to perform major surgery at the moment because
> we need to get to LC.  I remain open to discussing editorial changes to
> these sections and, if they are deemed to editorial by the group, to
> work with the Semantics editors to move some bits of them.
> In the interim, I have added some softer language defining isomorphism
> and removed that term from the section headers of 3.6 and 4.1 as Andy
> suggested.  I have used the term "comparison" in the section headers in
> the hope that won't be problematic.
> Can that suffice to get us into LC?

Yes, I'm still a bit concerned about section 1.7.

> > Can we merge section 5.5 The Value Corresponding to a Literal into
> section
> > 3.3 Literals?
> It would be nice to merge those two sections.  The problem is that
> several terms (lexical space, lexical-to-value mapping) aren't defined
> until Section 5 (Datatypes), but it makes sense to talk about (simple)
> literals early.  It is also best to avoid forward references (e.g. from
> 3.3 to 5.5).
> So, we have a choice between accepting forward references or cleaning
> up the literal sections.
> I opted to collapse the literal definitions into Section 3.3, after
> much gnashing of teeth, and to accept the forward references in
> relation to the datatype terms.  Hopefully it is better.

Definitely a step in the right direction. Haven't reviewed the changes in
detail yet.

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 15:24:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC