W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > April 2007

SWEO / FAQ comments

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:05:25 +0200
To: Susie M Stephens <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20070403170525.10107.1.1D@192.168.27.2>


General impression: Wow! I found some of the individual 
answers to be a little long for an FAQ, which I'd expect 
to be more like a glossary, but that may be just me.

Some minor, mostly really nitpicking comments:

>TOC
>"Does the exiisting Web has to be rebuilt for the Semantic Web?"
s/ii/i/
s/has/have/

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#What3
>"the integration of large, currently"
Drop the "large", perhaps? For me personally, the integration of 
lots of small data sources (e.g. RSS feeds, microformats pages) 
is one of the most attractive features of semweb techs.

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Will
missing "." at the end of the paragraph ;) Maybe re-arrange the
parentheses a bit. Without them, the sub-sentence is just
"there are Web Sites". Perhaps something along
[[
This is already happening: there are Web Sites (e.g., Sun’s white paper
collection site, Nokia’s support portal for their S60 series device, 
Oracle’s virtual press room, or Harper’s online magazine) that use 
Semantic Web technologies in the background.
]]

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#correct11
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#have
Not sure, I'm not a native speaker, but the "elsewhere" in the 
links makes me expect an external reference, and not a local one.
Maybe the additional words aren't needed at all, it's a bit like
"Click here".

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#correct11
Again, lack of proper english on my side, but 
"large number of users use SQL" 
=> "*a* large number", or "large number*s*"?
or maybe just "many people use SQL", so that we get rid of one
"use"?

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Does3
s/has to be/have to be/

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#L744
>"a standard format for data"
"technology", "collection of technologies", "system", "model", 
"approach to" or something like that instead of "format".

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Where1
>"URI-s “ground” the RDF into the Web"
Would s/the RDF/Resource Descriptions/
sound better? or just s/the RDF/RDF/?
I know, "the RDF" isn't wrong, but the rest of
the document seems to use "RDF" only.

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#mustOnt
s/An general example/A general example/

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#What5
s/modelled/modeled/?
Not sure, is the double-"l" BE-only or fine
with the other AE "z"s in the FAQ? 

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#that
s/with a well understood/with well understood/
s/in those language/in those languages/

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Does2
s/semi–automatically bridge/semi–automatically bridging/ ?
>"Agreement need only be local."
not sure if that's correct (no alternative either ;)

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#that1
s/modelled/modeled/ ? (see above)

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#does
s/within the same applications/within the same application/ ?

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Folskonomi
s/folksonomies (microformats, tagging, …)/folksonomies, microformats, tagging,
…/ (as MFs are independent of folksonomies)
it is necessary *to* add additional
s/keywordsearch/keyword search/ or keyword-search?
The third paragraph starts with "There are, of course, other differences.
Microformats ...". It isn't clear which differences are meant, those 
between MFs and ontologies, or between MFs and folksonomies?
>"developed very quickly by communities"
It's actually faster to create an RDF vocab than to go through the MF
process. Folksonomies can be developed very quickly, but they don't 
tend to be small.

s/reuse exisiting tools/reuse existing tools/
s/“bridge” to the microformat approach/“bridge” to the microformats approach/
s/an XHTML1.1 that/an XHTML1.1 module that/
s/RDF annotation/RDF annotations/
s/integrating different microformats/integrating different vocabularies/
(or some other replacement for "microformats" which is a proper/branded
name. maybe something along "integrating different information items")
And there is eRDF which also allows to add semantic markup to HTML.

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#does1
s/various type/various types/
I don't know where to squeeze it in exactly, but I think one huge
add-on of RDF is the ability to easily re-use combined (= enriched) 
data as input for further applications ("mashup chaining"). This
bcomes possible as RDF is a data technology while Web 2.0 focuses
on APIs.

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#Does
"stored in, say, in RDF/XML" => "stored in, say, RDF/XML"

>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#pout
s/violating the the validity/violating the validity/
s/microformat approach/microformats approach/
And eRDF allows to add a usable subset of RDF to XHTML w/o 
breaking validity.



Ben

--
Benjamin Nowack
http://bnode.org/
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 15:06:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:37 GMT