- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 10:14:44 +0000
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: RDF comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
At 16:27 19/02/2003 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: >Peter, > >With reference to your messages: >[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0148.html >[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0175.html >[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0193.html > >I accept a need for some editorial revision. This issue has been recorded >as WG issue pfps-15. Sorry I missed this earlier, but pfps-15 is specifically about the primer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0292.html The issue http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-15 concerns the sentence in the primer: [[ These examples also illustrate one of the basic architectural principles of the Web, which is that anyone should be able say anything they want about existing resources [BERNERS-LEE98]. ]] which Peter states is contradicted by the fact that not all graphs can be serialized in RDF/XML. This issue is independent of concepts. If there is another issue with concepts I'd prefer to track it separately. Brian > The remainder of this message is to clarify the extent of changes needed. > >You seem to claim there is a contradiction surrounding the question "Can >RDF say anything about anything?" > >I agree the phrase "Say anything about anything" is broken (I think >"Anyone can say something about anything" is closer to the intended goal >here.) However, this phrase does not appear in the last-call version of >the concepts document [4]. > >[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20030123/ > >I think that your comments suggest improvements in the following areas: >- clarify whether or not certain URIs are reserved from use in the > abstract syntax, corresponding to the restrictions in the RDF/XML > syntax [5] >- clarify the notion of "what is sanctioned by the RDF specification"; > I think the text about what is sanctioned by RDF may > require some clarification: some rdf/rdfs URIs are > reserved by RDF/XML for specific syntactic purposes, and > may not be used to denote resources (e.g. rdf:ID); > other rdf/rdfs URIs are reserved to identify specific > concepts, for which the corresponding resource is > constrained by the RDF specifications, and may not be > given an interpretation that is at variance with them. > >[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-grammar-summary > >However, I am at a loss to understand why being able to say something >about anything is in contradiction with the idea that the language has >certain syntactic restrictions. > >#g > > >------------------- >Graham Klyne ><GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Saturday, 1 March 2003 05:13:43 UTC