RE: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"

> 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

Ooops...skipped this one in my previous response. If I understand correctly
the proposal referenced below urges consistency in definitions across the
entire document set. AFAICT it doesn't advocate a particular consistent
direction. Following the 'links' it also seems that there is some sublety in
the distinction between the subject (or object) of a *triple* (syntax) and
the subject (or object) of a *statement* (semantic) which I had missed.

Now seeing this distinction, it makes perfect sense for Sections 6.1 to
speak of the syntactic artifact of a triple (subject, predicate and object)
being "RDF URI References" (modulo other comments on IRI, URI and RDF URI
References)... and I withdraw this comment (ie. #5 below).

However... Section 3.1 defines the subject, predicate/property and object of
a *statement* by reference to the corresponding definitions in Section 6.1
for *triples* which seems at odds with the resolution proposed in section 8
of [1].

In any case, this seems to be a topic that the WG is already sensitive to
and I am happy to trust to their judgement.

Best regards

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Feb/0073.html
--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 24 February 2003 13:07
> To: Jeremy Carroll; www-rdf-comments@w3.org; skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Subject: Re: Last Call comments on "Concepts and Abstract Syntax"
> 
> 
> 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 12:18:39 UTC