W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Cool URIs for the Semantic Web comments: some errors

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:02:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4A353B32.5060304@dfki.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, public-sweo-ig@w3.org
If you can't do it,
I can also!

just ping me!

but I have a lot of other stuff to do (like moving to vienna)
so I would be happy to pass it on... :-/

best
Leo

It was Ivan Herman who said at the right time 14.06.2009 19:21 the 
following words:
> I will have to edit the
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/2008/Errata-in-CoolURIs.html
>
> file. Danny... as a way to repent your shame:-), would it be possible 
> for you to do that? I know you cannot edit it on-site, but if you make 
> a copy of the HTML source, edit it, and send it back to me, I can then 
> put it back in place...
>
> It is not urgent...
>
> Thanks
>
> Ivan
>
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> I have to hide my head in shame, I proof-read (being the only native
>> English speaker around), and I missed a lot. Sorry.
>>
>> 2009/6/13 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
>>> Thank you Daniel,
>>>
>>> I will pass this on to the editors and store it as an erratum
>>>
>>> Thanks again
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> Barclay, Daniel wrote:
>>>> For any future editions of the Cool URIs for the Semantic Web document
>>>> currently at http://www.w3.org/TR/cooluris/ : There are a few errors,
>>>> mostly editorial:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Section 2 says:
>>>>     ... each of the pages ... are Web documents
>>>>   but should say:
>>>>     ... each of the pages ... is a Web document
>>>>   or:
>>>>     ... the pages ... are Web documents
>>>>
>>>> ** Section 2.1, in the example request and 202 response, says:
>>>>     GET /people/alice HTTP/1.1
>>>>   and then:
>>>>     Content-Location: http://www.example.com/people.en.html
>>>>   Was that URI supposed to be the following:
>>>>     Content-Location: http://www.example.com/people/alice.en.html
>>>>   (as it is in the 303 response)?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Section 2.1 says:
>>>>     Note that the URI of this representation is passed back in the
>>>>     Content-Location header, this is not required but a recommended
>>>>     good practice (see [CHIPS], 7.2).
>>>>   That comma should be a semicolon (or a sentence break).
>>>>
>>>> * Section 2.1 says:
>>>>     Instead of a direct answer, the server redirects to another URL 
>>>> ...
>>>>   That's not quite parallel.  It probably should say:
>>>>     Instead of returning a direct answer, the server redirects to
>>>>     another URL ...
>>>>
>>>> * Section 3.1 says:
>>>>     Bob may not like the look of the homepage, but fancy the person
>>>>     Alice.  So two URIs are needed, one for Alice, one for the 
>>>> homepage
>>>>     or a RDF document describing Alice.
>>>>   Why two URIs are needed isn't clear.  There should probably be an
>>>>   intervening sentence that mentions something about representing
>>>>   the objects of both of those statements about Bob's likes.
>>>>
>>>> * Section 3.1 says:
>>>>     In HTTP, because a 200 response code should be sent when a Web
>>>>     document has been accessed, but a different setup is needed when
>>>>     publishing URIs that are meant to identify entities which are not
>>>>     Web documents.
>>>>   Either the "but" must be removed, or something needs to be added at
>>>>   the end.
>>>>
>>>> * Section 3.1 says:
>>>>     In the next section, solutions are described that allow you to
>>>>     mint URIs ...
>>>>   That would be much clearer as:
>>>>     The next section describes solutions that allow you to mint
>>>>     URIs ...
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.1 says:
>>>>     When a client wants to retrieve a hash URI, then the HTTP protocol
>>>>     requires ...
>>>>   and
>>>>     ... a URI that includes a hash cannot be retrieved directly ...
>>>>   The document probably should not approximate there (saying that the
>>>>   client "retrieves ... the URI," even though it actually does _not_
>>>>   retrieve the URI--clearly, it already has the URI), especially since
>>>>   the document is discussing the details of when things are
>>>>   retrieved vs. just identified.
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.1 says:
>>>>     The decision which to return ...
>>>>   That would be clearer as:
>>>>     The decision of which to return ...
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.2 says:
>>>>     By doing this we avoid ambiguity between the original, real-world
>>>>     object and the resource that represents it.
>>>>   Was that meant to say "the resource that describes it"?
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.3 says:
>>>>     For example, to redirect from http://www.example.com/id/alice to
>>>>     http://www.example.com/doc/alice.
>>>>   That's not a complete sentence.  (It probably should be part of
>>>>   the previous sentence.
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.4 says:
>>>>     Any fragment identifier is valid, this in the above URI is a
>>>>     suggestion you may want to copy for your implementations.
>>>>  That comma should be a semicolon (or a sentence break).
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.5 says:
>>>>     Keep implementation-specific bits and pieces such as .php and
>>>>     .asp out of your URIs, you may want to change technologies later.
>>>>  That comma should be a semicolon (or a sentence break).
>>>>
>>>> * Section 4.7 says:
>>>>     A qs value of 1.0 for application/rdf+xml and 0.5 for text/html,
>>>>     would mean ...
>>>>   The comma should be elided.
>>>>
>>>> ** Section 5 says:
>>>>     http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Special:ExportRDF/Karlsruhe
>>>>       RDF description of Karlsruhe
>>>>     The URI of the RDF description is less than ideal, because it
>>>>     exposes the implementation (php) ...
>>>>   Is that last statement correct?  There is no ".php" suffix anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> * Section 6 says:
>>>>     ... the criteria from Section 3, which are to be on the Web and
>>>>     don't be ambiguous.
>>>>   That should either say:
>>>>     ... the criteria from Section 3, which are to be on the Web and
>>>>     not be ambiguous.
>>>>   or quote the two phrases italicized in the original.
>>>>
>>>> * Many occurrences of "e.g." (and maybe "i.e.") aren't followed
>>>>   by a comma.
>>>>
>>>> * Section 8 says:
>>>>      ... Tim Berners-Lee who ... helped us understanding the TAG
>>>>      solution ...
>>>>    The "understanding" should be "understand."
>>>>
>>>> * Section 8 says "detailled."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> * Section 1 says "frontpage."  Shouldn't that be "front page"?
>>>>
>>>> * Section 2 says "homepage" and section 3 says "home-page."  Shouldn't
>>>>   those references say simply "home page"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>> -- 
>>>> (Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft 
>>>> Exchange.)
>>>> [F]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>> mobile: +31-641044153
>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 18:03:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 14 June 2009 18:03:25 GMT