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

Re: Review of 19 August Editor's Draft of SKOS Primer

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:40:44 +0200
Message-ID: <48AC10CC.1010305@few.vu.nl>
To: Thomas Baker <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>
CC: SWD Working Group <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Tom,

> Review of 19 August Editor's Draft of SKOS Primer
> Summary:
> I have sent to Antoine and Ed alot of comments on minor points
> of detail in the form of edits to the draft I reviewed.
> Content-wise, the text fits my understanding of the SKOS
> data model, or at any rate I did not catch any errors.
> The text reads very nicely - congratulations to the editors!
> I recommend publication.

Thank you very much for this highly valueable review! Your mail does not 
show it, but the list of edits you've sent is impressive, and it 
enhances readability a lot.

> Details:
> Most of my edits had to do with typos, misspellings, awkward
> phrasings and the like.  Only two general issues seem important
> enough to mention here:
> -- The plural of "KOS".  The draft used "KOSs" or just
>    "KOS", as in "many existing KOS".  The Chicago Manual of
>    Style recommends "KOS's".  "KOSes" would be possible. I have
>    normalized everything to "KOS's" for now, though I don't
>    really like the way it looks.  If the KOS community has an
>    established way to pluralize KOS, I suggest we follow that.

I also don't like this apostrophe as well. Plus we're using URIs and not 
Actually we could be saved by the W3C manual of style:
http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#ref-PLURAL which cites 
http://xml.coverpages.org/properSpellingForPluralOfDTD.html , itself 
rather against the use of apostrophe ;-)

For the moment I'm gonna keep KOS's but that's just waiting for others 
to confirm my understanding of the above references.

> -- The construct "various types of".  Guus
>    suggests "various types of notes" (plural), so I have
>    normalized to that -- including the change: "other types
>    of KOS's".

Does it work the same with "kinds"? There are situation for which I have 
serious doubts (e.g. "kinds of hierarchical relation")

> A few other comments:
> -- Section 2.2 refers to "Terms used as descriptors", italicizing
>    "descriptors".  It would be nice to add a reference here.

I added a reference to Willpower Glossary.

> -- As they are currently formatted, the "Notes" interspersed
>    in the text do not look quite right -- especially because
>    quoted codings are indented less than the surrounding text.
>    Could the notes perhaps be formatted in line with the rest
>    of the text but in a smaller font?

I'd like Guus'advice on that, as he may knows more than us the 
accessibility rules we could break if opting for smaller font.
Also, he was instrumental in having us create these specific notes. 
Meanwhile I'll investigate if I can change the page's style. But I'm not 
an HTML expert...

> -- The table comparing ISO 2788/5964 with SKOS is really nice,
>    though I would recommend that the left column be "flush
>    top" within the cell.  I also note that long cell texts that
>    span two pages get vertically centered on the second page.

We'll try to solve that.

> -- "Messing with the SKOS vocabulary" is "tough" language --
>    but I rather like it :-)
> I am happy for this to be considered a review in fulfillment
> of:
>> ACTION: Ralph and Guus to review
>> the Primer Editor's Draft [recorded in
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/08/19-swd-minutes.html#action06]
I'll be putting on the wiki a new version in a couple of hours, if Ralph 
and Guus want to have a look.
But yes, your review heps a lot!


Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 12:41:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:54 UTC