- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:23:34 +0100
- To: Chris Bizer <bizer@gmx.de>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, ext Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, phayes@ihmc.us
Chris Bizer wrote: > > 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 > (semantic) > 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? No action taken - lack of space to expand - no suggested text. > > 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. > Done > 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. > Text has been changed completely please review. > 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". > Ditto - new version also uses URIs for some warrant graphs but in a more constrained and better articulated fashion. > 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 > used." > Change "could" in "should". > Done > 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. > Done > 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. Will do > 2. Describe the application areas in chapter 1 in little bit more detail and > check the punctuation in the list. No action, no space, no suggested words. > 3. reorder the bnode ids in the first example in section 5.3. to w1, w2, w3 > instead of w, w2,w1. Done, except w2 became a URI to make it a warrant graph. > 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. Modified > 5. in section 6: remove some of the x509 references: [33, 21, 22], I think > three are too many. Deleted one > > Chris > > Jeremy
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 16:23:56 UTC