- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:31:13 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Chris Bizer <chris@bizer.de>, www-archive@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: >> Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> >>> >>> This is now the submitted version (the PDF is one I have downloaded >>> from the site, after having uploaded it) >> >> >> Another one. >> >> Changes are mainly trivial; the most significant changes are 1 >> substantive change to Pat's text in section 2, and wording alignments >> between sections 2 and 6.2 (also Pat's text). >> >> Acknowledgements now fit. >> >> The substantive change is that the old text talked about >> interpretations of named graphs, and said that if I satisfies g then >> I(name(g)) = g; I don't believe we interpret named graphs at all, >> merely the graphs (or a merge thereof) within the named graphs. > > > I don't understand this at all. (Named graphs are graphs with names, > right?) But.... > A simple example was in 6.2 where you had an interpretation I of a (named) graph g, I now have an interpretation I of rdfgraph(ng), conforming with the naming, [where ng is a Named Graph], it is slightly more precise (and hence uglier). A similar point in section 2 seemed to me to be more of a change than a clarification. >> Hence I have changed this to say that an interpretation conforms >> with a set of named graphs N if for every ng in N then I(name(ng)) = ng. > > > .... as far as I can see this amounts to the same thing, so I have no > problem with that change. OK - we can discuss this later, but the modifications stands in the submitted text. > >> I have followed Chris's suggestion and capitalized Named Graph >> throughout, but personally I find it ugly. > > > Me too. Maybe it looks better in German than in English. > Again we can postpone discussion of this. > Pat > I am now not expecting to make any further mods. Jeremy
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2004 07:31:55 UTC