W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > July 2009

SKOS Primer editorial problems

From: Barclay, Daniel <daniel@fgm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:59:50 -0400
Message-ID: <4A64CCB6.60304@fgm.com>
To: <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
There seem to be a few editorial problems in the SKOS Primer
currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/PR-skos-reference-20090615/):


* Section 2.2 says:

     The first characterization of concepts are ...

   (There is a singular subject but a plural verb.)

   That should probably be:

     The first characterizations of concepts are ...

   (Or does British English do this differently that American English?


* Section 2.2.2 says:

     However, and even though SKOS is not intended as a guide for
     KOS design replacing existing standards [ISO-2788, BS8723-2],
     the reader should be aware ...

   The "and" is superflous.

   Something in or near "a guide for KOS design replacing existing
   standards" appears to be unparsable (or at least is confusing).


* Section 2.2.2 says:

      ... this does not correspond to a recommended practice.

   That probably would be clearer as simply "... this is not a
   recommended practice" (or, better yet, "... this is not recommended").


* Section 3.1 says:

     ... a concept cannot possess two different preferred labels
     in a same language.

   That probably should be "... in the same language."


* Similarly, section 3.3 says:

     Note that a same resource can have several subjects ...

   That should be "... the same resource ..." (or something like
   "a single resource").


* Section 4.1 says:

     Readers should however be aware that not using collections,
     even if more intuitive, may result in a harmful loss of
     semantic accuracy.

   That should probably say "even if that is more intuitive"; as
   written, it sounds like it's referring to the collections
   (as if it said "even if they are more intuitive").

* The next sentence says:

     For many description applications, for instance, "node labels"
     are entities of really specific nature ...

   That should probably say "... entities of a really specific nature
   ..."


* Section 4.3 says "associated to" (instead of "associated with").


* Section 4.3 says:

     ... the SKOS vocabulary has been appended with an optional
     extension for labels, SKOS-XL.

   That should be something like:

     ... the SKOS vocabulary has been augmented with an optional
     extension for labels, SKOS-XL.


* Section 4.5 says:

     ... the sets of all couples of resources related by P (its
     graph), as a subset of Q's, is likely to miss ...

   That "sets" apparently should be "set".


* Section 4.7 says:

     SKOS is intended to serve as a common denominator between
     different modeling approaches.  As such it is hoped that the
     current vocabulary specification will allow many existing KOSs
     to be ported to the Semantic Web.

   The "as such" and the following text don't fit together.

   (The subject of the following clause ("it"; the thing that is
   hoped) isn't the thing (SKOS) that is the type of thing (a common
   denominator) mentioned before the "as such.")

   One fix to that problem would be to write:

     SKOS is intended to serve as a common denominator between
     different modeling approaches.  As such, the current vocabulary
     specification will hopefully allow many existing KOSs to be
     ported to the Semantic Web.

   (Of course, if the authors were trying to avoid using "hopefully"
   that way, a different fix would be needed.)


* Section 4.7 says:

     Applications that require finer granularity will greatly benefit
     from SKOS being a Semantic Web vocabulary.

   That really should be:

     Applications that require finer granularity will greatly benefit
     from SKOS's being a Semantic Web vocabulary.

   (The gerund ("being") should have a possessive noun (SKOS's)
   before it, not a plain noun.)


* Section 5.1 says:

     Another example are ...


* There are a number of occurrences of using "more" like this:

     ... in combination with more formal languages such as ...

   That does follow the normal punctuation rule of not hyphenating to
   join an adverb ("more" in this case) with a following adjective
   that it modifies ("formal").  However, because of the ambiguity
   (between "more languages that are formal" vs. "languages that
   are more formal"), it seems that those occurrences should be
   punctuated as:

     ... in combination with more-formal languages such as ...


* The appendix says:

     SKOS does not itself specify rules on how to create concept
     schemes, however its data model reflects some KOS construction
     principles.

   That should be punctuated as:

     SKOS does not itself specify rules on how to create concept
     schemes; however, its data model reflects some KOS construction
     principles.

* The appendix also has an instance of "a same concept" (which seemingly
   should be "the same concept").

* The appendix says:

     For example, skos:closeMatch and skos:exactMatch separate cases
     where semantic equivalence is not exact but can be accepted for
     a given application, from cases where equivalence is perfectly
     valid from a semantic perspecitve

   The comma seems to be extraneous.

   The last word is misspelled.

   The sentence-end period is missing.


* The appendix says "transfered" (instead of "transferred").






Daniel




-- 
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]
Received on Monday, 20 July 2009 20:00:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 20 July 2009 20:00:01 GMT