- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:15:16 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
At 05:01 PM 10/28/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >I attach a marked up copy of the concepts doc containing a lot of green >ink. The good news is that its green which makes it stylistic rather than >substantive comment. The bad news is that there is a lot of it. I've >only got about half way through. I'll try to find time tomorrow to mark >up the rest, but may have to steal it from working on schema with Danbri. Brian, I find a majority of your comments to be helpful. There are some where, no surprise, we fundamentally disagree. I'll respond here to the problematic ones, and those where I seek further clarification; the others I'll work on with editorial discretion. Section 2, references to background material. Recalling the difficulties I had when originally learning about RDF, I think references to background information are really important. I will look to de-emphasize them so that they may appear less ostentatious, but I strongly resist removing them. (But if anyone feels they are not the most appropriate references I would be happy to entertain others.) Much of the material in section 2.2.7 was included in response to a reasonable comment, though I agree mostly belongs in concepts. I'll reorganize it rather than remove it. Terms, definition/introduction and use: I have tried to use HTML styles <dfn> and <cite> for these; the formatting is just what's in the stylesheet. These happen to be easy to apply using my HTML editor. Section 2.4.4: Datatypes, means and ends: I don't agree with, or misunderstand, your comment. I think a datatype *is* a _means_, the _end_ being to do roughly what I said. I'll try for some wording that finesses the distinction. Section 2.4.5: I think this section makes an important point. I can massage the words. Section 2.4.6: Most of this was in response to an observed confusion. Entailment is a different kind of specification from those found in other protocol definitions, and I felt that it needed some exposition. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 11:22:39 UTC