I am happy either way, since the sentence is not that formal I saw no reason to over-egg the correctness, and I preferred some slight readability: I see the matter as editorial, and not one I am that concerned with. I think your "each" is a clear improvement.
Since the term "refer" is not formally defined, the proposal does not suggest that graph names should not "refer" to graphs, just as it does not suggest that graph names should not refer to persons, or to types of cheese. So I believe you are misreading the intent here: the intent is to suggest formal semantics which strongly suggests my preferred informal semantics, but does not rule out other people's preferred informal semantics. Jeremy J Carroll Principal Architect Syapse, Inc. On Oct 1, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Sandro Hawke <san...@w3.org> wrote: > On 10/01/2013 04:56 PM, Jeremy J Carroll wrote: >> Not withstanding this formal meaning, graph names in a dataset may >> informally refer to something other than the graph they are paired with. > > Surely you mean: > Not withstanding this formal meaning, graph names in a dataset may each > informally refer to something other than the pair of the graph name and the > graph it is are paired with. > ... since in your proposal, graph names never formally refer to graphs. > > (not saying this on-list right now, since that would probably be a > distraction from a more considered response.) > > -- Sandro >
