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

Re: Comments on RDF Concepts

From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 12:38:28 -0400
Cc: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DD9EC43A-DA3E-4CF4-9BA2-5B641946F275@3roundstones.com>
To: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Jul 3, 2013, at 11:23, "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 03, 2013 4:24 PM, David Wood wrote:
>>>   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"

Done.

> 
> 
>>> 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 You are using heavily outdated version of ReSpec.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>
> 
> to
> 
> <script src="http://www.w3.org/Tools/respec/respec-w3c-common"
> class="remove"></script>
> 
> This should fix it for you.

Thanks!  I see the PubRules checker pointed that out as well (for other editors).


> 
> 
>>> 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.

Understood (and sympathetic).  I will discuss with Pat and Peter.

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood


> 
> 
>>> 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
> @markuslanthaler


Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 16:38:50 UTC

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