W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: pfps-16, proposed resolution (revised)

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 16:42:12 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 09:51 09/04/2003 +0300, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>Hi Graham,
>I see this message as muddling a simple issue resolution with other editorial
>improvements, and dis-improvements.
> > (1) deletion of old section 2.2.7 (which didn't really say anything not
> > covered by 2.2.6)
>I like this change, I suggest we list it as editorial, and not under this


> > (2) revised title and rewording of section 2.2.6:
>This is mostly an improvement.
>I suggest that some of these changes be marked agaisnt williams-01 in the
>change log, since you are using the vocabulary of "statement" and "resource"
>in a consistent fashion rather than miscellaneous words such as "simple
>assertion" "topic", "anything".

Mumble. Maybe so.

>I am not 100% confortable with
>"In general, it is not assumed that the information about any resource is
>complete: there may be information that is not yet available."
>I prefer the smaller option of:
>"In general, it is not assumed that complete information about any
>resource is available."

Yes, that's better.

> > (3) revised content of section 3.5:
>The only change necessary for this issue was deleting the last sentence of 
>penultimate paragraph (old text).
>Editorial change to the last paragraph is an improvement.
>The new first paragraph:
>RDF provides a framework to make information about resources readily
>accessible for automated processing. It is domain neutral, so a broad range
>of information can be expressed, and arbitrarily diverse kinds of information
>may be combined in a single RDF graph.
>would need to be justified in my view, by a last call comment that indicated
>that this background material was needed.

I disagree (strongly) that it needs to be justified by a last call comment.

This is based on some words that Pat noticed (by Shelley, I think), and 
which he commented would be very helpful to use in some form.  I think the 
additional words help to convey the intent of this section, and do not 
otherwsie change it, and as such are fully justified as an editorial 

>There is a danger that one of our more pedantic readers would disagree with
>this background statement. Since the text can stand without it, and we did
>not present this paragrpah for last call I would prefer not to add it.

*if* and *when* our reviewers choose to take issue with the text being 
proposed, I would say that reconsideration is appropriate.  Until then, I 
do not think we should be afraid to make to the text that we feel improve 
its conveyance of the intended message.

>I do not understand the motivation for the further changes to this section,
>and prefer the LC text.
>Aspects I like about the LC text (including the section heading):
>+ it starts with other representations of simple facts, not RDF
>+ it works through the N-placed predicate/N-column table problem in 
>detail. I do not find the primer treatment sufficient.
>OTOH this section is one of the longer discursive parts of the text. Having
>cut so much cutting this leaves the document with a more consistent feel.
>Maybe it would be possible to reduce the text while still maintaining the two
>features above that I valued in the original.

Here, I find it difficult to match changes exactly with issues raised.  In 
his comments, Peter raised a number of objections about the comparison with 
database and n-place predicates, and the changes were made to address those 
concerns.  Because I was able to reference a (now stable) discussion in the 
primer, it seemed most appropriate to cut back the text as I have done.


Graham Klyne
PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9  A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 13:02:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC