W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2013

Comments on RDF Concepts

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:36:26 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <017101ce7681$84cf7410$8e6e5c30$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Hi all,

I had a look at the latest version of RDF Concepts and have a couple of
comments and suggestions:

Linked Data is not mentioned at all in the document. Given the perma-thread
we just had I think it should at least be said once that RDF can be used to
create Linked Data. Maybe after this sentence:

    Perhaps the most important characterisitic of IRIs in web
    architecture is that they can be dereferenced, and hence serve as
    starting points for interactions with a remote server

There's also a typo in that sentence

s/characterisitic/characteristic/


Can we drop the "universe of discourse" or replace it with something a bit
more common?


    The IRIs in an RDF vocabulary often share a common substring known
    as a namespace IRI.

It would probably be better to say "often *begin* with a common substring"


In section 1.4 RDF Vocabularies and Namespace IRIs, what's the point of
linking to the Primer?


    In some contexts it is common to abbreviate IRIs that start with
    namespace IRIs by using the associated namespace prefix.

In which contexts? It probably better to say that in some
situations/contexts it is easier/beneficial/... because it makes the data
more readable.


Can we add JSON-LD to the list of concrete RDF syntaxes in section 1.8 RDF
Documents and Syntaxes?


Can we (re)move sections 1.7 Equivalence, Entailment and Inconsistency and
3.6 Graph Isomorphism, and 4.1 RDF Dataset Isomorphism (to Semantics)?


Can we merge section 5.5 The Value Corresponding to a Literal into section
3.3 Literals?


Cheers,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Monday, 1 July 2013 17:36:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 1 July 2013 17:36:57 UTC