Re: Comment on Last Call Working Draft of RDF Syntax document concerning blank node identifiers

On Wed, 14 May 2003 14:52:10 +0100
Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> At 09:39 14/05/2003 -0400, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >My view is that the current Syntax document is incorrect, and incorrect in
> >an important manner.
> 
> That may be but please note that editorial doesn't mean unimportant, it 
> means that we don't need a WG decision to resolve it.

It is an editorial fix so I'll be addressing it.

> >   I have spent quite a bit of effort to get this
> >changed, starting last year, well before Last Call, but the issue is not
> >yet resolved to my satisfaction.
> >
> >The last communication I received was on 30 January 2003.  I had been
> >waiting for the rest of the promised changes, but to my recollection I have
> >not yet recieved any.

I outlined the approach to clarify your comment in the Jan 30 message
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0153.html
but I wasn't promising a new working draft at that time.  Now that there
is only one current open issue on the syntax document, waiting for
coordination from webont, it is more appropriate to do the updates.

> You are right - Dave did state intent - Dave - are these still on your todo 
> list?  I note Dave also requested suggested wording from you.  Will you be 
> able to suggest some?

The above message is one of the editorial changes on my list for the
syntax draft after comments public and private.  I had hoped to make
a start on them this week but at this point it seems unlikely I'll get them
all done.

Dave

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2003 07:34:33 UTC