W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Syntax Doc

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:36:12 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <32400.1035894972@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> > -----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

No, I intend it to be normative ("relating to or dealing with norms")
and these are normal, standard and legal examples.  It also informs,
but it is expected to be correct (the complete examples have been
machine checked).

There are plenty of examples given in normative sections of
specifications, and this is one section - it defines what a node
element, property element etc. is.

> - moved to being an informative appendix

No.  People needed examples and there were definitely a need for them
plus an explanation of how the syntax works - this document isn't
just for parser writers.  I've already had positive feedback on this.

> - 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)

Definitely not.  See above feedback.

> 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.

I didn't mention whitespace in the text, but pointed to the
concepts doc section on XML Literals.

> 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 doubt object is a better word to use than value in terms of
lessening ambiguity.  There are probably 3-4 different categories of
things in the RDF/XML document that people might call objects,
depending on their background.

Would the phrase "object node" would make more sense?

Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 07:36:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC