- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:34:31 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Some minor points: well-foundedness I think that any output document should ensure that a reader is likely to come across (some note about) the justification for sets that contain themselves before an example. A simple way to achieve this is to have a subsection entitled "The WellFoundedness of the RDF Model" visible in the table of contents, containing some of Pat's comments. On first reading there was a period when I was half expecting a non-standard set theory with an axiom of anti-foundation. [Menzel's neat trick is reminiscent, if I remember correctly, of some treatment of anti-foundation that I saw well over a decade ago, so I am probably misremembering, Peter Aczel's Anti-Foundation Axiom is the one I explored at the time]. <unnamed point> From intro to section 3: "the inference of (exists (?x) (foo (?x)) from (foo baz)" Not if baz is a literal and not a resource (if there are any such things :-)). Probably doesn't matter the more formal stuff is clear. Perhaps we need to have clear separation or labelling of normative and non-normative material. [I have jumped the gun, and I am imagining that much of this text will end up in the final documents!] xml:lang It would not cost very much to indicate how xml:lang can be treated in section 1. e.g. For serializations that permit language tagging from a set of language tags LT (which we will take as containing "" for untagged items, cf RFC 3066), there is a fixed mapping XTL: LT x qLiterals to LV. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 17 August 2001 04:30:13 UTC