Re: RDF Concepts and Abstract Syntax: two comments

>
>Hi Herman,
>
>treating both comments as editorial ...
>
>"globally"
>in section 3.2
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20031010/#section-URI-Vocabulary
>
>I am uninclined to make too much of this comment, since this section of 
the
>document is intended as less formal introductory text, preceding the more
>formal treatment in section 6.
>
>Would the following minor wording change avoid the worst of the problem 
you
>highlight:
>
>Old:
>[[, and has no globally distinguishing identity.]]
>
>Suggested replacement:
>[[, but has no intrinsic name.]]
>
>the next para talks about blank node identifiers making it clear that 
such
>identifiers are not intrinsic to the node.
>
>
>
>On 6.3 Graph Equivalence
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-concepts-20031010/#section-graph-equality
>
>I am happy to accept your text as an editorial improvement.
>
>The whole section will read
>[[
>Two RDF graphs G and G' are equivalent if there is
>a bijection M between the sets of nodes of the two
>graphs, such that:
>1. M maps blank nodes to blank nodes
>2. M(lit)=lit for all RDF literals lit which are nodes of G
>3. M(uri)=uri for all RDF URI references uri which are which are nodes of 
G
>4. The triple (s,p,o) is in G if and only if the triple (M(s),p,M(o))
>   is in G'.
>With this definition, M shows how each blank node in G can be replaced 
with
>a new blank node to give G'.
>]]
>
>(Omitting the observation about the number of blank nodes, which is 
obvious)
>
>
>Please can you reply cc www-rdf-comments@w3.org as to whether these 
changes
>are acceptable.
>
>thanks
>
>Jeremy
>
>
>

Hi Jeremy,

These changes are acceptable.

(Note that line 3 contains two times 'which are'.)


Herman

Received on Friday, 7 November 2003 09:49:39 UTC