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

comments on Concepts

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:06:27 +0100
Message-ID: <5277F033.9080909@vu.nl>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
As preparation for working on the Primer I read through Concepts again. 
Her are some detailed editorial suggestions (all to be handled during CR 
except maybe the first one).


* Almost all references to Semantics are to the 2004 document (RDF-MT 
instead of RDF11-MT).

* Sec. 1.8
Suggest to include at least one syntax that handles RDF datasets, i.e. 

* Secs. 3.3 & 5.2
The namescace document http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns does 
not contain these two new datatypes:

* Sec. 3.6
Should the reference to RDF Test Cases be updated?

* Sec. 4.2
We probably had this discussion before, but I suggest to change "Primary 
resources" to "Primary Web resources", for clarity.

* Sec. 5
   Language-tagged strings have the datatype IRI 
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString. No datatype is 
formally defined for this IRI because the definition of datatypes does 
not accommodate language tags in the lexical space.

The phrasing "No datatype is formally defined" is likely to confuse 
readers, given the first sentence. Suggest to rephrase such that it 
becomes clear the datatype mapping cannot be defined. The term 
"formally" also has a specific interpretation here which might not be 
clear to everyone.

* Sec. 5.1
   The other built-in XML Schema datatypes are unsuitable for various 
reasons, and SHOULD NOT be used.

Explicate how this statement is related to the note just below it.

* Sec. 6
   Primary resources may have multiple representations that are made 
available via content negotiation [WEBARCH]. Fragments in RDF-bearing 
representations should be used in a way that is consistent with the 
semantics imposed by any non-RDF representations. For example, if the 
fragment chapter1 identifies a document section in an HTML 
representation of the primary resource, then the IRI <#chapter1> should 
be taken to denote that same section in all RDF-bearing representations 
of the same primary resource.

This paragraph has too much overlap with the previous one (subtle 
distinction, but this is likely to escape readers). Suggest to fold 

* Appendix A
The introduction of RDF datasets should be mentioned
Received on Monday, 4 November 2013 19:06:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:17 UTC