Re: minor errors in WD-rdf-primer-20030905

Sven--

Thanks again for your comments. Here is a summary of the changes I 
propose to make to the Primer in response to your comments:

 > made affect ->
 > may affect

The text you want corrected is in boilerplate that was used in all the 
last call RDF documents, not just the Primer.  The text is only 
applicable to these last call documents, and hence will not appear in 
the next published version of the Primer (or the other documents). Hence 
I propose to leave this text alone for now, since it will get fixed 
"automatically" when the next versions are published.

 > property interpret ->
 > properly interpret

As I noted earlier, this change had been made in the 10 October Last 
Call Primer version.

 > may not used ->
 > may not be used

This change will be made as you suggest.

 > as normatively defined in ->
 > are normatively defined in

I propose to change
"and certain other concepts to be described later, as normatively 
defined in"

to

"and certain other concepts to be described later. These things are 
normatively defined in"

 > provides no additional meaning that such a program can directly use ->
 > ? the object referred to by "such a program" is unclear and very remote

I propose to change
"provides no additional meaning that such a program can directly use"

to

"provides no additional meaning that an arbitrary RDF application can 
directly use"
referring to "an arbitrary RDF application" which has been mentioned in 
the two preceding paragraphs.

 > month, day, and year ->
 > (illogical order; I know: some don't like logic :-) )

As I noted earlier, I don't propose to change this order;  this conforms 
to American usage, and particularly to the order of the components of 
the exterms:creation-date property in a previous example, in which the 
components are written in month, day, and year order ("August 16, 1999").

 > later in this section). ->
 > later in this section.)

 > in explaining the example). ->
 > in explaining the example.)

In response to these last two suggestions (and our subsequent 
discussion) what I propose to do is this:

Where the parenthetical material is subordinate to another sentence 
(even when the parenthetical material has the form of a complete 
sentence), I'm going to leave it alone.  This includes the two cases 
you've cited above.

Where the parenthetical material is a stand-alone sentence, with the 
first word capitalized, as in the case you cited of

"(Line numbers are added to help in explaining the example)."

I'll move the closing period inside the parentheses (there are several 
places where this change would be made).

Please reply cc-ing www-rdf-comments indicating whether these changes 
are acceptable.

Thanks again.

--Frank

Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 09:43:30 UTC