- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 22:27:41 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy: >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. Graham: > I disagree (strongly) that it needs to be justified by a last call comment. I will settle for striking "arbitrarily". on striking of example ... Graham: > 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. Looking in the archive I found: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0320.html where Peter seemed mainly concerned about ill-thought claims concerning expressive power. Deleting the single sentence addresses that problem. I can't see any others in the archive - what I am missing? The LC text does not claim that the RDF representation is equivalent, merely that it is an expression of, an n-place predicate or a n-column table. The primer does not deal with this problem, which is why I thought we had this text in the first place. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 16:27:19 UTC