- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:17:16 -0600
- 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 >>referee. >> >>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?? Pat >#g > > >------------------- >Graham Klyne ><GK@NineByNine.org> -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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