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

RE: comments re issue-166

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 10:40:56 +0200
To: "'Pat Hayes'" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00cf01cecfcb$98a628a0$c9f279e0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, October 23, 2013 7:04 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
> My responses to all the 'easy' suggestions by Michael are in-line
> below.

Looks good to me except:

> * 7, 3rd par: "RDF processors are not REQUIRED". The word
>    "not" should also be written in uppercase to avoid
>    misconception while reading the text.
> ReSpec uses strict RFC 2119 rules, and 'NOT REQUIRED' is not a defined
> phrase in RFC 2119.

RFC 2119 defines keywords to unambiguously specify requirements. The text

  RDF processors are not REQUIRED to recognize any datatype IRIs other than

Clearly doesn't specify a requirement. I would thus propose to simply
lowercase REQUIRED:

  RDF processors are not required to recognize any datatype IRIs other than

> * Appendices: Several of the appendix titles contain the text
>    "(Informative)", directly followed by the sentence
>    "This section is non-normative". This is redundant. I suggest
>    to remove "(Informative)" from the titles, in accordance
>    with the rest of the document.
> This is kind of tedious, but there is a reason for it. The italicised
> sentence is added by ReSpec, but we think it desirable to have the
> table of contexts clearly indicate normativity and its lack, hence the
> inclusion of the bracketed qualifier in the section titles. I prefer to
> keep this for extreme clarity even if it is kind of silly.

I kind of agree with Michael on this. It looks extremely weird, doesn't add
much clarity and makes links to those sections uglier as ReSpec includes the
"informative" there as well:


Furthermore, it might be difficult to keep those two "labels" consistent.
The Acknowledgements section for example doesn't have "(informative)" in its

> * References: I do not understand why the following documents
>    are listed as "normative references":
>    - OWL2-SYNTAX
> Um, neither do I. Does the WG have any guidance on what the rules are
> here?

I don't understand it for OWL2-SYNTAX but RDF-PLAIN-LITERAL is part of a
conformance requirement and thus it probably makes sense for it to be a
normative reference:

  ... when IRIs listed in Section 5 of [RDF11-CONCEPTS] are recognized, they
   MUST be interpreted as described there, and when the IRI rdf:PlainLiteral
  is recognized, it MUST be interpreted to refer to the datatype defined in


Markus Lanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 08:41:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:33 UTC