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

Re: NG paper changes for Jeremy

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:23:34 +0100
Message-ID: <408040C6.4020402@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
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.


> 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".

> 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.

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.


> 5. in section 6: remove some of the x509 references: [33, 21, 22], I think
> three are too many.

Deleted one
> Chris

Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 16:23:56 UTC

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