W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

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

From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:56:10 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'www-rdf-comments@w3.org'" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

Picking up the points Jeremy defered to me...

At 05:30 PM 2/12/03 +0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
>1) Section 3.1 "Graph Data Model" 1st para: Editorial
>Last sentence begins:
>"The RDF graph is a set of triples:" suggest s/The/An/

OK, I'll note that as a minor editorial fix.  (No issue needed, I think.)


>10) Section 7, 2nd Para: "These apparently conflicting views can be
>reconciled by considering that, in an RDF graph, any RDF URI Reference
>consisting of an absolute URI and a fragment identifier identifies the same
>thing as the fragment identifier does in an application/rdf+xml
>[RDF-MIME-TYPE] representation of the resource identified by the absolute
>URI component. Thus:..."
>This is a hard paragraph to get right and clear. I think is is possible to
>both read and mis-read its intent, I certainly did the latter first and on
>further re-reading found I could also read it as I think it was intended.
>The misreading probably stems from the length of the first sentence and the
>phrase "...a fragment identifier identifies the same thing as a fragment
>identifier does in an application/rdf+xml representation...". Without the
>final clause "...of the resource identified by ther absolute URI component."
>it gives the impression that the "fragment identifier" is viewed as occuring
>within an RDF/XML document, pointing out (which is backward because the
>application/rdf+xml applies to the thing being pointed from (referee) rather
>than the thing being pointed at (referent)). However, somewhat late in the
>process of parsing the sentence, the last clause switches ends, to it being
>a (hypothesised) RDF/XML representation of the referent with the graph as
>I think I have concluded that the sentence does indeed say what I think it
>was intended to say, but it does take several readings for it to take on
>that meaning.

I'll need to look at this.  There's been another comment which suggests a 
misreading of this section.  Are you content for me to take this as a minor 
editorial issue for review, or would you like a formal WG response?


Graham Klyne
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 12:19:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:02 UTC