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

Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:17:16 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b07ba8162c58f89@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>Picking up the points Jeremy defered to me...
>At 05:30 PM 2/12/03 +0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
>>1) Section 3.1 "Graph Data Model" 1st para: Editorial
>>Last sentence begins:
>>"The RDF graph is a set of triples:" suggest s/The/An/
>OK, I'll note that as a minor editorial fix.  (No issue needed, I think.)
>>10) Section 7, 2nd Para: "These apparently conflicting views can be
>>reconciled by considering that, in an RDF graph, any RDF URI Reference
>>consisting of an absolute URI and a fragment identifier identifies the same
>>thing as the fragment identifier does in an application/rdf+xml
>>[RDF-MIME-TYPE] representation of the resource identified by the absolute
>>URI component. Thus:..."
>>This is a hard paragraph to get right and clear. I think is is possible to
>>both read and mis-read its intent, I certainly did the latter first and on
>>further re-reading found I could also read it as I think it was intended.
>>The misreading probably stems from the length of the first sentence and the
>>phrase "...a fragment identifier identifies the same thing as a fragment
>>identifier does in an application/rdf+xml representation...". Without the
>>final clause "...of the resource identified by ther absolute URI component."
>>it gives the impression that the "fragment identifier" is viewed as occuring
>>within an RDF/XML document, pointing out (which is backward because the
>>application/rdf+xml applies to the thing being pointed from (referee) rather
>>than the thing being pointed at (referent)). However, somewhat late in the
>>process of parsing the sentence, the last clause switches ends, to it being
>>a (hypothesised) RDF/XML representation of the referent with the graph as
>>I think I have concluded that the sentence does indeed say what I think it
>>was intended to say, but it does take several readings for it to take on
>>that meaning.
>I'll need to look at this.  There's been another comment which 
>suggests a misreading of this section.  Are you content for me to 
>take this as a minor editorial issue for review, or would you like a 
>formal WG response?

Graham, I am also rather worried about this, which I simply didnt 
notice before (mia culpa). Can we at least have some discussion? I 
mean, surely we cannot go on record as saying that any URIref with a 
fragID in RDF *denotes* whatever that fragID would mean to any 
application. That would make "rdf:type" for example refer to a place 
in a web page, or to whatever an HTML browser would interpret it to 
mean. So what did you mean here by 'identifies' ?

Or am I not following you at all here??


>Graham Klyne

IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:17:22 UTC

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