Syntax Doc

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Subject: Re: Regrets - 1st Nov
>
> Are you going to have any comments on the syntax WD?
>
> If so, I'd prefer to have anything you've got ASAP so I can edit
> anything in before Friday.
>

So far I have read up to but excluding the grammar (section 7 is it now).

I have a few minor fixes and one substantive change:-

Section 2 must have one of the following changes:
- clearly marked as informative
- moved to being an informative appendix
- deleted (if we were to follow the puritanical minimalist model - which
would be my pref. but I would freely admit that the other docs including
RDF-C&ADM don't follow this)

The minor fixes I have are corrections to section 2 which is occasionally
incorrect. We are unlikely to have found all the bugs, which is why the
change to explicit informative status is imperative.

As a taster:
[[
2.8 "beginning a:Collection"

The example should be change to delete the whitespace between the end of the
ex:prop start tag and the beginning of the a:Collection start tag, so that
the comment cannot be misinterpreted as indicating that the whitespace is
insignificant.
]]
I think my other corrections are at a similar level of pedantry.

An editorial issue in section 2 is the use of the word value for the object
of a triple. I think this is probably misguided and confusing. I suggest
that we should not use 'value' for anything syntactic - often I believe the
phrases would be better with the word "object".

I hope to send my full comments first thing tomorrow morning.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 07:22:35 UTC