Suggestions from January review on §1.2 #193
Conversation
Bob DuCharme's 3nd comment https://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected]
Bob DuCharme's 7th comment https://www.w3.org/mid/[email protected] Bob notes that the comma makes it look like we are introducing a new idea
pchampin
added
spec:editorial
spec/index.html
Outdated
| to an RDF triple is known as an <dfn data-local-lt="statement">RDF statement</dfn>. | ||
| (As we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| to an RDF triple is known as an <dfn data-local-lt="statement">RDF statement</dfn>. | |
| (As we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted.) | |
| to an RDF triple is known as an <dfn data-local-lt="statement">RDF statement</dfn> | |
| (as we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For this to make sense to me, whether or not the current parenthetical is put before or after the full-stop of the preceding sentence, there must be an indication that the "basic" or "default" triple is asserted. I do think it reads better as @bobdc put it. I would also add <dfn data-local-lt="asserted"> which I did not include below.
So, perhaps, like this:
| to an RDF triple is known as an <dfn data-local-lt="statement">RDF statement</dfn>. | |
| (As we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted.) | |
| to an RDF triple is known as an <dfn data-local-lt="statement">RDF statement</dfn>, and sometimes as an asserted triple. | |
| (As we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted.) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be fair, @bobdc suggested to put the parenthesis after the 1st sentence of the paragraph, which starts with "Asserting and RDF triple...".
I though the flow of the whole paragraph was better with the parenthetical after the 2nd sentence, but I can see now that it was not as good. Will revert to the original suggestion (but applying @hartig's suggestion for the punctuation).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would not use "As we shall see ..." .
The document does not use "we" in the text except at "We informally use the term RDF source ..." which is acceptable.
"Not all triples are asserted." is enough IMO.
|
Isn't this simply editorial? |
| strings in a natural language including an initial text direction.</p> | ||
|
|
||
| <p>Asserting an <a>RDF triple</a> says that <em>some relationship, | ||
| indicated by the <a>predicate</a>, holds between the | ||
| <a>resources</a> <a>denoted</a> by | ||
| the <a>subject</a> and <a>object</a></em>. This statement corresponding | ||
| the <a>subject</a> and <a>object</a></em> | ||
| (as we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| (as we shall see <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted). | |
| (as explained <a href="#section-triple-terms-reification">below</a>, not all triples are asserted). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@afs how about this fix?
Preview | Diff