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

Concepts doc review

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 16:28:16 +0000 (GMT)
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0301061527460.5502-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Basically a thumbs-up.

Mostly typos follow, although I've still some concerns about mentioning
the law at all in this document.

Section 2.2.3

- The last sentence "The other kind of value..." kind of leaves me
	hanging, wanting to know what a literal is. And isn't this
	section about names, not values?

Section 3.1

- Is the last sentence a shorthand for "...is the conjunction *of the
	meaning* of all the statements..."? Actually, that's more
	confusing, better as it is.

Section 3.2

- This chestnut again. Nodes _are_ URIrefs, but arcs are labelled by
	URIrefs. This is nitpicking though.

Section 3.3

- Terms like "paired with exactly one" make the lexical->value mapping
	sound bijective, although both bullet points taken together
	make this clear.

- XMLLiteral. This might actually be a comment on semantics section 4.1,
	rule rdf2b. I wasn't sure when I read that if the canonical form
	of an XML Literal subsumed the lang tag into the literal or
	whether it's an external thing. If the latter (which section 5
	might be seens as giving the lie to) rdf2b needs revision (for
	a typo).

- last paragraph. Note that compound XML schema types are somewhat
	undersupported at the moment (I think).

Section 3.5

- possibly an OWL comment: can OWL express a relational compound
	primary key using the relational->rdf mapping suggested
	in this example?

Section 3.6

- First paragraph, "The ideas *of* meaning..."

Section 4.2, penultimate paragraph.

- Be really bloody careful here. Libel law (in the UK at least) does not
	observe the de re/de dicto distinction; publishing a libellous
	statement with qualifications or in quotes may constitute libel
	itself. Don't write anything that might be construed as quasi-
	legal advice into something published by the W3C (or get
	someone with a legal head to check it first).

Section 4.5

- be careful here too. if the assertion in (B) comes after that in (C),
	the publishers of (C) might feel hard-done-by should a
	specification indicate that they are in the wrong (although
	"previously defined" might be seen as a get-out).

Section 6.4

- phew! It's ironic that "universal resource identifiers" have been
	extended to produce "international resource identifiers".

Section 6.5.2

- typo, second paragraph: "the pair *formed* by the lexical form..."

Section 7.

- first para, I've only ever seen "context-free" hyphenated, although
	"context dependent" looks fine. Maybe someone can step in with
	a dictionary?

- third bullet point reads to me as with a use/mention problem. I think
	"Graham Klyne's car" should be in quotes. Is Graham Klyne's
	car an abstract idea? Or is the notion of his car the idea?
	In fact, the whole example is borderline Pythonesque.

- fourth bullet point reads "Thus: thus, ..."

I think that's it. I would add a disclaimer at the top (probably after
the penultimate paragraph of section 1) that (particularly
non-normative) sections are intended to be
illustrative/expositive/explanatory/whatever and
not to constitute any form of legal advice.


jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
The Java disclaimer: values of 'anywhere' may vary between regions.
Received on Monday, 6 January 2003 11:30:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC