Various comments
Section 2.2.3 - The last sentence "The other kind of value..." kind of leaves me hanging, wanting to know what a literal is. And isn't this section about names, not values? Section 3.1 - Is the last sentence a shorthand for "...is the conjunction *of the meaning* of all the statements..."? Actually, that's more confusing, better as it is. Section 3.2 - This chestnut again. Nodes _are_ URIrefs, but arcs are labelled by URIrefs. This is nitpicking though. Section 3.3 - Terms like "paired with exactly one" make the lexical->value mapping sound bijective, although both bullet points taken together make this clear. - XMLLiteral. This might actually be a comment on semantics section 4.1, rule rdf2b. I wasn't sure when I read that if the canonical form of an XML Literal subsumed the lang tag into the literal or whether it's an external thing. If the latter (which section 5 might be seens as giving the lie to) rdf2b needs revision (for a typo). - last paragraph. Note that compound XML schema types are somewhat undersupported at the moment (I think). Section 3.5 - possibly an OWL comment: can OWL express a relational compound primary key using the relational->rdf mapping suggested in this example? Section 3.6 - First paragraph, "The ideas *of* meaning..." Section 4.2, penultimate paragraph. - Be really bloody careful here. Libel law (in the UK at least) does not observe the de re/de dicto distinction; publishing a libellous statement with qualifications or in quotes may constitute libel itself. Don't write anything that might be construed as quasi- legal advice into something published by the W3C (or get someone with a legal head to check it first). Section 4.5 - be careful here too. if the assertion in (B) comes after that in (C), the publishers of (C) might feel hard-done-by should a specification indicate that they are in the wrong (although "previously defined" might be seen as a get-out). Section 6.4 - phew! It's ironic that "universal resource identifiers" have been extended to produce "international resource identifiers". Section 6.5.2 - typo, second paragraph: "the pair *formed* by the lexical form..." Section 7. - first para, I've only ever seen "context-free" hyphenated, although "context dependent" looks fine. Maybe someone can step in with a dictionary? - third bullet point reads to me as with a use/mention problem. I think "Graham Klyne's car" should be in quotes. Is Graham Klyne's car an abstract idea? Or is the notion of his car the idea? In fact, the whole example is borderline Pythonesque. - fourth bullet point reads "Thus: thus, ..." I think that's it. I would add a disclaimer at the top (probably after the penultimate paragraph of section 1) that (particularly non-normative) sections are intended to be illustrative/expositive/explanatory/whatever and not to constitute any form of legal advice.
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0004.html
Various comments; concern about language mentuioning legal issues.
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0005.html
See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0006.html
Dan Connolly notes that W3C legal advice is that legal reference is OK.