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

Re: comments on Concepts

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 12:25:23 +0100
Message-ID: <5278D5A3.7070205@vu.nl>
To: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>, 'RDF WG' <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 05-11-13 11:48, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> 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.

Markus,

Yes, indeed, I had some hope for repairing it yesterday/today.

>
>
>> * 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.

Would prefer dropping RDF/XML and adding TriG.

>
>
>> * 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

I guess you missed the one above.

Rest is fine, thx for the quick response.
Guus

>>
>> * 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 11:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 5 November 2013 11:26:01 UTC