Editorial comments about concept sections
First, thanks much for setting this draft out, I think it clears the way to a finally unambiguous definition of the data model, and solves my previous rants on the data model part in the MT (cf. from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0107.html : + issue of literal information in the semantics + "no free meal" for blank nodes (and related instances problem)) provided of course the MT is updated accordingly. Ideally, the MT might just refer to this draft for any ADM definition :) Even, it touches the other big issue regarding the Test case drafts, namely the previosuly erroneous/fuzzy notion of graph isomorphism, cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0081.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002AprJun/0083.html (incidentally, I think we didn't get a final resolution about the conformance issue there yet; oh well ;). Back to the doc, some comments, plus a couple of discussion points (XML literals, fragid's). *** Sections 1 and 2: > [[[NOTE: it is anticipated that some of the material in this document may be > moved to other documents as part of the document review process.]]] Yes, this is definitely an option: I found the doc very well written, but, so to say, like it's putting together things of a very different nature: ADM formal definition, general principles about the semantics, etc. Mostly, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 don't seem to belong to the next part, the ADM definition. I'll let you figure out how to deal with this. An option might be to move 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 to the Primer, for example. Anyway, just a matter of personal reading tastes. [...] *** Section 4.2 Do we really need this? This whole part is made out of linguistic statements (because, admittedly, the issue is hairy), but so it should be either formalized (and then, likely put in the MT), or taken out. Restated: suppose the whole section is striken out: what would change? I'd suggest RDF stays out of the very hairy fragid's issue for the time being.
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0165.html
Editorial comments concerning concepts sections. Also expresses concern that some of the material tackled is too difficult, cannot be formalized, and does not belong in an RDF specification.
[GK] Concerns clearly with GK's text.
See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments
See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-assertion
[GK] Note that most of the difficult issues raised here are in response to specific comments raised against the previous RDF specifications. See the issues cited.
See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-fragments
Material from earlier sections may be moved to other places when the document set is reviewed as a whole. Until then, I plan to leave it here so that the material is not lost.
Concerning the discussion of fragment, this was included in response to a specific issue raised against the document. I've been living with this explanation for a while now, and feel that the basic ideas are consistent with RDF usage and with wider URI use in the web. (No document changes at this time.)See: http://www.ninebynine.org/wip/RDF-concepts/2002-10-18/rdf-concepts.html
No change to the concept sections at this time.