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

RE: comments on Concepts

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:48:48 +0100
To: "'Guus Schreiber'" <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>, "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <013501ceda14$9c6e52c0$d54af840$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Monday, November 04, 2013 8:06 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> 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). 
>
> Guus
>
> * Almost all references to Semantics are to the 2004 document (RDF-MT
> instead of RDF11-MT).

Why not during CR? I think this isn't what was intended and should be fixed
ASAP.


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

JSON-LD is already mentioned there. I think it would make sense to instead
remove some (yeah, RDF/XML e.g.). What about just keeping Turtle, RDFa, and
JSON-LD? Would be fine with adding TriG though.


> * 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:
>    http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString
>    http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#HTML
> 
> * Sec. 3.6
> Should the reference to RDF Test Cases be updated?

As already said, I still find this should be moved to Semantics as it isn't
needed in Concepts at all. The "apology" that RDF Test Cases needs it
(Concepts isn't testable) just underlines this. Same for section 4.1.

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

Good catch. Would drop the Primary though as the term isn't clear and isn't
defined till section 6.

 
> * 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.

+1 but is it really true that it *cannot* be defined or is it just that we
decided to not define it? If the (optional) language tag would be taken into
consideration in the datatype mappings it would become possible... and in
practice I think that's what's done anyway, isn't it?

This brings me to another point. The note in section 3.3 says: 

   Implementors might wish to note that language tags conform to
   the regular expression '@' [a-zA-Z]{1,8} ('-' [a-zA-Z0-9]{1,8})*
   before normalizing to lowercase.

I don't think the "@" at the beginning is correct. That's just the separator
used in Turtle.


> * 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
> together.

+1, what about removing the RDF/XML example (which explains the same thing
as the RDFa one) and instead adding a

"Similarly, fragment identifiers should be used consistently in resources
with multiple representations that are made available via content
negotiation [WEBARCH]. 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."


> * Appendix A
> The introduction of RDF datasets should be mentioned

+1


> One more:
>
> * References
> [HTML-RDFA] needs to point to Rec version

+1



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:49:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:49:19 UTC