Re: review of namespace doc

This all looks OK, CC-ing Dave Beckett, since we reviewed this in 
response to his comment.

Jeremy


Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 14:48 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>> Summary:
>>
>> Much better than when I last looked, still a little bit of tidy up 
>> needed before PR.
>>
>> =============
>>
>> This is a review of:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2003/g/data-view
>> $Revision: 1.41 $ of $Date: 2007/05/02 13:33:23 $
>>       by $Author: connolly $
> 
> OK, I considered those suggestions and implemented
> them, or something close, in
> revision 1.44 of 2007/06/19 10:46:59
> 
> Details...
> 
>> 1)
>> The document should link to the specification in the first para.
> 
> Done.
> 
>> 2)
>> Before PR the Note:
>> [[
>> Note: While we have a growing
>>        body of documentation, examples, code,
>>        and experience with GRDDL, it is still experimental and subject
>>        to changes.  The GRDDL Working
>>        Group welcomes comments
>>        by email.
>> ]]
>> should be rewritten.
> 
> Done: "Note: As of May 2007, the GRDDL specification is a W3C
>       Candidate Recommendation. The GRDDL Working
>       Group welcomes comments
>       by email, especially comments that reflect implementation
>       experience."
> 
>> 3)
>> Suggest the heading:
>> [[
>> Learning More
>> ]]
>> should be
>> [[
>> Definition of the GRDDL Namespace and Metadata Profile
>> ]]
> 
> Changed to
>   GRDDL Namespace and Metadata Profile Reference
> 
>> 4) in the first reference
>> Suggest delete "2
>>          March 2007"
>> the link is an undated URL and so the text should not have a date either.
> 
> Well, I think it's useful to refer to it using a non-restrictive
> clause a la "the GRDDL spec, which was released May 2007".
> When a new version is released, the namespace doc should be
> updated, but if it's not, the failure mode is that the reader
> gets the newer update, though mismatch in the metadata
> suggests that the namespace document is a bit untrustworthy,
> which is a reasonable suggestion in that case.
> 
>> The undated version seems appropriate.
>> (On looking at the GRDDL result, I am unsure about this comment.
>> Overall, the conventions on dated versus undated versions are not 
>> entirely clear).
> 
> I edited the citations for consistency:
> 
>     </TR/grddl/>     dc:date "2007-05-02";
>          dc:title """Gleaning
>         Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages
>         (GRDDL)""";
>          :label """Gleaning
>         Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages
>         (GRDDL), W3C Candidate Recommendation  2 May 2007""" .
> 
>     </TR/rdf-concepts/>     dc:date "2004-02-10";
>          dc:title """Resource
>       Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract
>       Syntax""";
>          :label """Resource
>       Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract
>       Syntax, W3C Recommendation 10 February 2004""" .
> 
>     </TR/webarch/>     dc:date "2004-12-15";
>          dc:title """Architecture of the World Wide Web, Volume
>         One""" .
>     
>     </TR/xslt>     dc:date "1999-11-16";
>          dc:title """XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version
>       1.0""";
>          :label """XSL Transformations (XSLT) Version
>       1.0 W3C Recommendation 16 November 1999""" .
> 
> 
> 
>> 5) Before PR, I suggest deleting the ToDo item at the bottom of the 
>> page, either by doing it, or by not doing it.
> 
> Deleted (by not doing it).
> 
>> 6) Reading the GRDDL namespace with the Jena reader ...
>> (this looks OK, but perhaps should be reviewed in detail)
> 
> I read it again with the online GRDDL service
> and ran it thru cwm's N3 pretty-printer; it looks OK
> to me.
> 
> I'm also trying to look at it in the tabulator, but
> I think the tabulator is kinda unstable/buggy just now.
> 

-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Tuesday, 19 June 2007 11:05:23 UTC