- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 13:07:20 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
At 17:48 20/02/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > > > > 5) 6.1 RDF Triples: (picky) > > > > The 3 bullets use language that indicate that the subject, predicate and > > object of an RDF triple may each be an "RDF URI Reference" rather than the > > thing that the "RDF URI Reference" identifies/denotes. This is symptomatic > > of the same 'complaint' as comment 2) above. It may be a conscious > choice of > > the WG/Editors to speak directly of nodes and properties being URI rather > > than the things that such identifiers denote/identify - just doesn't mesh > > with my mental model of RDF (which I'm willing to accept may be flawed). > >Aspects of this problem have been discussed by the >WG on the 7th Feb. > >We are trying to clearly distinguish discussion of the >syntactic structures (triples nodes urirefs) from discussion >of the semantic concerns (statements and resources). > >However, there are numerous editorial errors which we >are currently trying to fix. > >This seems extensive enough to require an issue ID. >Brian is there one already? > >However, if the proposal in item 8: > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0073.html > >does not address your issue then we will need to give >this further consideration. >Please indicate whether the planned editorial correction >to uniformly use the syntactic language you did not like meets >your comment. There is no comment id for this at present. I'm holding off allocating one till we get a response from Stuart as to whether he is satisfied by your response. Brian
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:51:05 UTC