W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > June 2012

Re: ACTION-158 Turtle review

From: Gavin Carothers <gavin@carothers.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:27:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPqY83ws5=YkgtPotFGxkdrk4hOuWy6p_yS3jm_jF0Doz3sWPA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin
<pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> here comes (finally) my review of the turtle document;

Thanks for taking the time to review!

>
> * Sec1, Par2 : "a RDF graph" -> "an RDF graph"

Fixed.

>
> * Sec1, example: a figure would be nice here, although not strictly
> necessary

What sort of figure were you thinking?

>
> * Sec2, Sec3 and Sec4: are those sections really normative? It seems to me
> that they are reader-friendly introductions to Sec5 and Sec6; which contain
> the core of the specification.

Toss up. They do in fact define some parts normatively. Other parts
are more reader-friendly but do not contradict the more specific
statements made later.

>
> * Sec2.3, Par1: "following a subject and predicate" -> well, not necessarily
> directly. If a predicate list is used, the subject could be much higher in
> the document. So I would rather write "following a predicate", then later on
> replace "that subject" by "the corresponding subject".

Fixed.

>
> * Sec3.1, exemple: the example comes either too soon or too late: some ways
> to write IRIs have already been presented (<>, a) but other have not been
> yet (prefixed name). I would rather have the example at the end of Sec3.1
> (may be as subsection 3.1.3 ?)

Moved.

>
> * Sec3.2.3 "the URL from which a particular SPARQL query was retrieved"; you
> mean "Turtle document" instead of "SPARQL query", right??

Errr... yes. Eric you been copying and pasting again? ;)

>
> * Sec3.2, last paragraph before 3.2.1: the order of the 3 last sentences is
> weird; I would rather put them in order 2,1,3, resulting in:
>
> If there is no language tag, there may be a datatype IRI, preceeded by ^^.
> The datatype IRI in Turtle may be written using either an absolute IRI, a
> relative IRI or prefixed name. If there is no datatype IRI and no language
> tag, the datatype is xsd:string.

Agree, changed order.

>
> * Sec3.2.3, example: prefix my: is not declared

Prefix my: is no longer used at all.

>
> * Sec3.3: "liberalized to allow:" -> "liberalized as follows" (gramatically
> more consistent with the following list, containing whole sentences)

Better English from the French!

>
> * Sec5.1, Par2: it is confusing to mention IRIREF here, as IRIREF is already
> addressed by the previous paragraphn being in capital letters (I smell that
> it comes from the renaming of production rules...). I would replace that
> sentence by "White space is also significant in the production String").

Agree, changed.

>
> * Sec5.3, table: I would introduce the table by a short sentence, e.g. "The
> table below specifies in which context each kind of escape sequence can be
> used".

Added table caption.

>
> * Sec6.1, Par1: "four items" -> "five items"

Counting fail. Thanks.

>
> * Sec6.1, bullet 3: "from string to blank node label" -> "from string to
> blank node"

Yep, wouldn't really want to map to a label from a label.

>
> * Sec6.2, procedure for PNAME_LN: remove the last sentence (about relative
> IRI resolution). If I got it right, namespace prefixes are already absolute,
> so this is not required.

Correct. No idea why it talked about that.

>
> * Sec6.2, procedure for RDFLiteral: replace <code>IRIref</code> by
> <code>iri</code>

Ugh, missed a spot.

>
> * Sec6.2, procedure for RDFLiteral: add the sentence "if neither a language
> tag nor a datatype IRI is provided, the literal has a datatype of
> xsd:string".

Fixed.

>
> * Sec6.3, Par3: "Each object <code>O</code>" -> "Each <code>object</code>"

Fixed.

>
> * Annex A, Encoding consideration: "[0-9A-F]" -> "[0-9A-Fa-f]" (Turtle
> accepts lower-case hex digits)

Fixed.

>
> * everywhere: there are a number of references to production rule IRI_REF
> (including links), which should be replaced by IRIREF

Ahhh, this text was added back in after the last time I did a global
replace, same as IRIref iri. Fixed.


>
>   pa
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 21:27:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:49 GMT