- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:05:45 +0000
- To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jan, Thanks for this... it's added to my issues list for action in the last-call period. #g -- At 04:28 PM 1/6/03 +0000, Jan Grant wrote: >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 > > >-- >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. ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:21:25 UTC