W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > April 2004

NG paper changes for Jeremy

From: Chris Bizer <bizer@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:50:36 +0200 (MEST)
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, www-archive@w3.org <www-archive@w3.org>, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, phayes@ihmc.us
Message-ID: <16119.1082037036@www47.gmx.net>


I went again trough the whole document and would propose the following

1. section 2.1: "Within the framework of this paper, it is natural to think
of this as a
named graph containing a single triple, blurring the distinction between a
statement and a (syntactic) triple."
I think this section is important, thus could be a little bit more precise
here. Is it appropriate to blur the distinction? What are the consequences?

2. section 3: "This serialization of named graphs has some disadvantages:"
RDF/XML is actually no serialization of Named Graphs, because you cannot
serialize a triple where the subject is a literal with RDF/XML.
Thus we could write: "Using RDF/XML has some disadvantages:" 
Also delete "Any particular information provider can only use certain URIs
as names, specifically URLs from those Web servers on which they can
publish." because with xml:base he can use any URI for naming.

3. section 5.1: "Since acts are rather transient things to pin down, we will
identify the act
by a certain concordance between the agent publishing a graph and the
content of the
graph itself. Strictly, the act is the actual publication event, but we will
instead use the
graph which results from the act as the bearer of the appropriate meaning." 
The relation between graph and agent is too restrictive. If I also assert a
graph which has already been asserted by somebody else, I do a webAct, but
without publishing "the" graph. I'm just publishing a graph containing a
warrant, which refers to "the" graph.

4. section 5.2: ":G1 { :Monica ex:name "Monica Murphy" .
:G1 swp:assertedBy :G1 .
:G1 rdf:type swp:Warrant .
:G1 swp:authority _:a .
_:a rdf:type swp:Authority .
_:a foaf:mbox <mailto:chris@bizer.de> }"

:G1 swp:assertedBy :G1 .
:G1 rdf:type swp:Warrant .
:G1 swp:authority _:a .

is wrong !!! Who changed this? It must be:

:G1 swp:assertedBy _:w2 .
_:w2 rdf:type swp:Warrant .
_:w2 swp:authority _:a .

or _:w1 and change the bnode in the second example to _:w2.
Also delete "of a blank node, but".

5. section 5.3: "The URL used by the publisher needs to be understood
by the information consumer, so only a few well-known variations could be
Change "could" in "should".

6. section 5.4 example query: "( ?s swp:x509Certificate ?certificate )"
should be changed into
"( ?s swp:certificate ?certificate )" because we have updated the vocabulary
in the meantime.

It would also be nice if we could:

1. Decide that "Named Graphs" is a name and thus write it in capital letters
through the whole document. Right now small and capital letters are mixed.
2. Describe the application areas in chapter 1 in little bit more detail and
check the punctuation in the list.
3. reorder the bnode ids in the first example in section 5.3. to w1, w2, w3
instead of w, w2,w1.
4. section 5.4: The nearly identical sentence "The information consumer
needs to decide which graphs to accept." appears twice in the first and
second paragraph.
5. in section 6: remove some of the x509 references: [33, 21, 22], I think
three are too many.


NEU : GMX Internet.FreeDSL
Ab sofort DSL-Tarif ohne Grundgebühr: http://www.gmx.net/info
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2004 09:51:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:32:27 UTC