I'm sorry, but it is ungrammatical! X1 is the subject of the first 'is'
but what is the subbject of the second 'is'?

Using the format requested by Arnt (see jbovlaste instructions), I
suggest: j3 is a danger about which a warning is given to j2 by j1
(event/state/property).

If you feel uncomfortable with it, please send your proposed definition to
[email protected] for a community response.

By the way, I also am also a native English speaker and have a background
in communications (languages, not IT). That doesn't mean I'm always
right, but in this case, I am.

Comment #4: Re: Still ungrammatical

Seth Turner (Thu Jan 20 18:24:41 2011)

I see what you meant. it was grammatical, but weird. There was a relative clause that i think you were missing. I made it explicit. your definition wasn't a bad way to put it though. i may decide to change mine to that.