- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:36:20 +0000
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Frank, These are all editorial and you have discretion to make them. Brian Frank Manola wrote: > > I propose that the comments in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003OctDec/0038.html > are editorial, and that I send the following reply: > > Sven-- > > Thanks again for your comments. Here is a summary of the changes I > propose to make to the Primer in response to your comments: > > > made affect -> > > may affect > > The text you want corrected is in boilerplate that was used in all the > last call RDF documents, not just the Primer. The text is only > applicable to these last call documents, and hence will not appear in > the next published version of the Primer (or the other documents). Hence > I propose to leave this text alone for now, since it will get fixed > "automatically" when the next versions are published. > > > property interpret -> > > properly interpret > > As I noted earlier, this change had been made in the 10 October Last > Call Primer version. > > > may not used -> > > may not be used > > This change will be made as you suggest. > > > as normatively defined in -> > > are normatively defined in > > I propose to change > "and certain other concepts to be described later, as normatively > defined in" > > to > > "and certain other concepts to be described later. These things are > normatively defined in" > > > provides no additional meaning that such a program can directly use -> > > ? the object referred to by "such a program" is unclear and very remote > > I propose to change > "provides no additional meaning that such a program can directly use" > > to > > "provides no additional meaning that an arbitrary RDF application can > directly use" > referring to "an arbitrary RDF application" which has been mentioned in > the two preceding paragraphs. > > > month, day, and year -> > > (illogical order; I know: some don't like logic :-) ) > > As I noted earlier, I don't propose to change this order; this conforms > to American usage, and particularly to the order of the components of > the exterms:creation-date property in a previous example, in which the > components are written in month, day, and year order ("August 16, 1999"). > > > later in this section). -> > > later in this section.) > > > in explaining the example). -> > > in explaining the example.) > > In response to these last two suggestions (and our subsequent > discussion) what I propose to do is this: > > Where the parenthetical material is subordinate to another sentence > (even when the parenthetical material has the form of a complete > sentence), I'm going to leave it alone. This includes the two cases > you've cited above. > > Where the parenthetical material is a stand-alone sentence, with the > first word capitalized, as in the case you cited of > > "(Line numbers are added to help in explaining the example)." > > I'll move the closing period inside the parentheses (there are several > places where this change would be made). > > Please reply cc-ing www-rdf-comments indicating whether these changes > are acceptable. > > Thanks again. > > --Frank
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 05:39:48 UTC