D.2 terms not found in document (errata, editorial)
pfps opened this issue · comments
There are at several terms in D.2 Terms defined by reference that appear to not be used in the rest of the document
- lexical form
- literal term equality
- literal value
- object type
- Section 3.3
The term "literal" is defined from two different documents: N-QUADS and RDF11-CONCEPTS. These are two different things and should not use the same term in this document.
There are at several terms in D.2 Terms defined by reference that appear to not be used in the rest of the document
- lexical form
- literal term equality
- literal value
- object type
- Section 3.3
These are added automatically by respec when they're used. These terms are used within details which hides them unless the details is expanded. Look at "Explanation" in https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-canon/#ca.2, for example.
The term "literal" is defined from two different documents: N-QUADS and RDF11-CONCEPTS. These are two different things and should not use the same term in this document.
The local term "literal" is used as a reference to two different things. Generally, it refers to the definition from RDF11-Concepts. In the case in the N-Quads canonicalization section, it refers to the literal production. This is consistent with Concepts and N-Quads parallel definitions of the concept of a literal and the EBNF grammar production.
One reason I was unable to find the terms is that the links don't work. Compare clicking on the referenced in links for other terms and for these. Perhaps there is a bug in respec?
Literals with the datatype http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string MUST NOT use the datatype IRI part of the literal, and are represented using only STRING_LITERAL_QUOTE.
Would be much better if the second "literal" was "literal production" or some other phrase to distinguish it from the Concepts "literal". As it is, it reads like "literals with X must not use X".
There are anchors for these (e.g., "#ref-for-index-term-lexical-form-1"), but it doesn't open probably because the details is closed. This seems like a shortcoming in ReSpec, which probably would need some active code to expand the details section if it contains an anchor which is referenced. I'll file an issue against ReSpec.