- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:44:34 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org
At 18:00 27/01/2003 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: >re http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/ > >I'm going over it with a fairly fine-tooth comb, >updating my larch stuff. > http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/RDFAbSyn.lsl > >I found 2 bugs: > > % 6.3 Graph Equality > % REVIEW: if this is really equality/identity > % (and I think the model theory sees it as such) > % then a graph isn't just a set of triples; > % it's an equivalence class of sets of triples > >if a graph is a set of triples, then graphs are >equal when they contain the same triples, full stop. >Not so. Pls fix. Recorded http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01 >2ndly... > >specification of literals is goofy... "A literal in an RDF graph > contains three components called: ... > The datatype URI being an RDF URI reference. ... > A plain literal is one in which the datatype URI is absent." >Hello? you just told me every literal has one. > >Specify that the datatype URI and language identifier >are optional. Recorded http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#danc-01 >see also weblog notes... > http://rdfig.xmlhack.com/2003/01/27/2003-01-27.html#1043707824.268497 > >and my notes about larch... > http://www.w3.org/XML/9711theory/#about-larch > >-- >Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 04:43:50 UTC