W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > April 2008

[VM] comments on 16 March editor's draft

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:33:48 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20080406160758.02136670@127.0.0.1>
To: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, public-swd-wg@w3.org

At 11:38 AM 3/17/2008 -0700, Elisa F. Kendall wrote:
>We posted a new editor's draft of the Vocabulary Management note last night -- please see
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/Vocab/principles-20080316.

This draft has really shaped up nicely, Elisa.  I think it is a fine
framework to which we can add as we get time.

Some specific notes I made while reading this draft follow:

1. Introduction, paragraph 2, says '...  the notion of an "RDF
vocabulary" is similar to the notion of a "web ontology"'.
It seems to me that we can and should say something
stronger than "is similar to".  I've generally felt that by
"web ontology" we [should] mean "OWL ontology" and
that the class of RDF vocabularies is a subset of the
class of OWL ontologies.  This may not be sufficiently
precise for some people but I expect you could propose
some words along these lines.

2.2. Provide Readable Documentation, paragraph 3, says
"... we recommend publishing both human and machine-readable
documentation ...".  This comes after two paragraphs that describe
the human-readable documentation and so might mislead a
reader to thinking that the human readable documentation might
be more important.  As noted later in section 2.5, the machine-
readable variant is really a MUST in the Semantic Web.  It would
be sufficient, I think, to add to the start of this paragraph "/+The
Semantic Web relies on machine-readable descriptions of
vocabularies.+/ In practice, we recommend ..."

2.2. Provide Readable Documentation, paragraph 4, "A recent
EU activity ...".  I suggest using absolute temporal coordinates;
i.e. "A 2007 EU activity ..." so that the document will be less
confusing further down the time axis.

2.2. Provide Readable Documentation, after paragraph 4 I think
it would be good to add a short paragraph citing the Dublin Core
revision history and giving a forward reference to section 2.3.2.

3. Research Topics, mentions C-OWL without providing a reference.
The long (fourth) paragraph describing C-OWL reasoning is pretty
dense and may be too detailed here relative to the rest of the
document.  Perhaps it can be summarized to be more accessible
to a wider readership, but at least for now it's interesting to keep it.

6. References; CoolURIs has been updated and a final Interest Group
Note published.   The preferred URI is http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/

I'd like to see this document go out soonish to First Public Working Draft.

-Ralph
Received on Sunday, 6 April 2008 20:34:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 April 2008 20:34:25 GMT