RE: comments on Concepts

OK, fixed most the points you raised. The ones that I have *not* fixed yet
are:

> >> * Secs. 3.3 & 5.2
> >> The namescace document http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns does
> >> not contain these two new datatypes:
> >>     http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString
> >>     http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML
> 
> I guess you missed the one above.

No, I didn't miss it but it hasn't much to do with Concepts and I don't know
how to fix it.


> >> * Sec. 3.6
> >> Should the reference to RDF Test Cases be updated?

Fixed it. The new index page can be found at:

https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/rdf/raw-file/default/rdf11-testcases/index.html

I've use the "unofficial" template for the time being. Is this going to
become a Note or something else?


> > As already said, I still find this should be moved to Semantics as it
isn't
> > needed in Concepts at all. The "apology" that RDF Test Cases needs it
> > (Concepts isn't testable) just underlines this. Same for section 4.1.

I would still like to get some more comments regarding the statement above
(I know we briefly discussed this a while ago on the telecon but most people
weren't aware that this is not needed at all in Concepts).


> >> * Sec. 5
> >> [[
> >>     Language-tagged strings have the datatype IRI
> >> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString. No datatype is
> >> formally defined for this IRI because the definition of datatypes does
> >> not accommodate language tags in the lexical space.
> >> ]]
> >>
> >> The phrasing "No datatype is formally defined" is likely to confuse
> >> readers, given the first sentence. Suggest to rephrase such that it
> >> becomes clear the datatype mapping cannot be defined. The term
> >> "formally" also has a specific interpretation here which might not be
> >> clear to everyone.
> >
> > +1 but is it really true that it *cannot* be defined or is it just that
we
> > decided to not define it? If the (optional) language tag would be taken
into
> > consideration in the datatype mappings it would become possible... and
in
> > practice I think that's what's done anyway, isn't it?

So, what do we do about this?


> > This brings me to another point. The note in section 3.3 says:
> >
> >     Implementors might wish to note that language tags conform to
> >     the regular expression '@' [a-zA-Z]{1,8} ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*
> >     before normalizing to lowercase.
> >
> > I don't think the "@" at the beginning is correct. That's just the
> > separator used in Turtle.

Is that correct or did I miss something? Shall I remove the @ at the
beginning of the regex?


> >> * Sec. 5.1
> >> [[
> >>     The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for various
> >> reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used.
> >> ]]
> >>
> >> Explicate how this statement is related to the note just below it.

Not fixed yet.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2013 17:41:51 UTC