W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > March 2011

mini issue-57 doc feedback - p2

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 02:30:43 +0000
Message-ID: <4D8AACD3.6020605@webr3.org>
To: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
CC: AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
Nathan wrote:
> Working from the "/latest" on 24th March

first note, I think the term "Information Resource" is important to 
keep, it sets a context and gives people something useful to latch on to 
when reading.

1.2 Glossary
as previously, consider "fixed" instead of generic, so:
[
accessible via
When a URI is dereferenceable, "the information resource accessible via 
a URI" (abbreviated IR(that URI), see below) is the information resource 
whose versions are the versions obtained by dereferencing that URI. If 
there is only one such version, then it is a "fixed information resource".
]

I quite like the term "characterize" at the minute, consider (only a 
mild suggestion, I also like the text you wrote):
[
definition
A document or document part that provides information about the meaning 
of a URI or other phrase. This term is not meant to be either rigorous 
or exclusive. The "information" could be prose, RDF, OWL, or some 
combination. It needn't be either complete or specific in "defining" the 
phrase, rather it's just supposed to characterize the referent of that 
phrase.
]

dereferenceable definition has minor typo ("a standard access 
mechanisms"), either change to "a standard access mechanism" or 
"standard access mechanisms" ?

as previously, remove generic and swap specific for fixed, perhaps 
reword as (?):
[
information resource
An "information resource" is either /fixed/, i.e. a document or other 
replicable entity such as an image or sound recording possessing a 
single version, or it is associated with multiple versions that have 
something in common. Metadata that is true of every version of an 
information resource is considered to be true of the information 
resource itself.
]

phrase - would this not include literals too? (thinking it's synonymous 
with names in rdf-mt) - probably doesn't matter for this document though!

version, you've already defined this slightly differently higher up the 
document, consider re-writing to:
[
version
Fixed content (octet sequence) together with directives, such as media 
type and language, intended to guide the interpretation of the content.
]

WS(u), it appears to me that there's some URI mix up in here - perhaps 
it should read:
[
WS(u)
WS(u) is shorthand for the meaning of a URI u according to the 
definition of u in (a version of) the information resource IR(u). For 
example, if IR('http://example/fred') says that 'http://example/image23' 
refers to Fred the mynah, then WS('http://example/image23') is Fred the 
mynah. ('WS' stands for 'whatever it says'.)
]

Section 2:
Generally, it might be nice to <em> each name/phrase, for example 
"spoonwings" and "http://example/spoonwing", and also refer to the 
phrase again later so that "using the chosen phrase as the subject" 
would read "using the chosen phrase "http://example/spoonwing" as the 
subject".

note sure I get the spoonwing variant use case "Variant use case: Same 
as above, but Bob's bibliography includes a number of RDF documents, and 
his metadata includes information relevant for making use of those RDF 
documents." - can it be explained a little more or removed?

general: perhaps hyperlink each instance of a term in the doc to it's 
definition (for example "phrase")?

general: niggling over 2.3 .. it's the problem use case for sure, will 
come back to it later..

3.1 URI scheme and URN namespace registrations:
needs a specific real world example so people can grok it properly (at 
least so I can!)

3.2 The LSID URN namespace:
Worth keeping if one can expand on what the URI for the IR is perhaps, 
it seems related but perhaps needs more info..

3.3 A dereferenceable URI refers to the information resource at that URI
s/pubish/publish

okay, need to finish there, will pick up tomorrow!

best,

nathan
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:31:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 March 2011 02:31:48 GMT