- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 07:51:30 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- CC: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I think you can probably get away without defining "arc" any further than it already is (where it's used in describing the diagrams), if you eliminate its use in the third sentence of Section 3.4: "A literal may be the object of an RDF statement, but not the subject or the arc." Here, "property" or "predicate" should be substituted for "arc" anyway, to be consistent with the terms used for the other components of the statement. --Frank Graham Klyne wrote: > > I'm agnostic about defining 'Arc'. But I do think the term 'node' is > useful separately from the context of "nodes and arcs diagrams". > > #g > -- > > At 12:47 05/06/03 +0100, Dave Beckett wrote: > >> I am going through the editorial updates to the syntax WD and I got to: >> >> > Does the RDF series need to define "arc"? The original RDF syntax says >> > quite a lot: "directed labeled graphs (also called 'nodes and arcs >> > diagrams')" and defines arc in its glossary as "A representation of a >> > property in a graph form; specifically the edges in a directed labeled >> > graph." The new Concepts and Syntax specs mention yet do not seem to >> > define arc. >> -- >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0419.html >> >> We do define node (link to editors' draft dfn): >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-concepts-20030117/#dfn-node >> >> but not arc. So can we talk about nodes & arcs pictures anymore? :) >> >> Dave > > > ------------------- > Graham Klyne > <GK@NineByNine.org> > PGP: 0FAA 69FF C083 000B A2E9 A131 01B9 1C7A DBCA CB5E > -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 07:29:00 UTC