Comments on current editor's draft (Web 1.0, 3rd October 2012)

These are small comments on the current version of the WebID spec.

The document is obviously not finished yet and will certainly evolve a 
lot still until it gets to a stable state.

General comments:
  1.  all current W3C specs in the Semantic Web activity now use IRI, 
you should replace URI with IRI everywhere, I think;
  2.  there is some freedom taken in capitalising words arbitrarily. 
Starting a word with a capital letter is not a proper way of emphasing a 
word. A noun with a capital letter has a different meaning than the same 
noun without a capital letter, e.g., web VS Web. For emphasis, use 
italic, bold face, or underline;
  3.  masculine and feminine are both used randomly, to talk about a 
user, but even sometimes to talk about an agent in general. Either stick 
to a consistent gender, with a disclaimer that you use it for ease of 
reading to avoid "he/she" spelling, or simply use "he/she", or 
reformulate the sentences to make them gender-neutral, or stick to 
masculine only when you talk about Bob, and feminine only when you talk 
about Alice, being neutral in any other case;
  4.  I don't see where the use of Bob and Alice actually helps. A 
generic "user" or "user agent" would be fine, as far as I can see, since 
we don't rely on the notion so heavily;
  5.  W3C specs are normally written in American English dialect.

Detailed comments:
Intro:
"in one click" -> this suggests a specific way of implementing which 
requires a mouse.
"a URI whose sense" -> "whose" is normally for people
"foaf" -> it's an acronym, use "FOAF"
"such that the he is known" -> "such that he", I guess (modulo gender 
neutralisation)
"his Certification" -> why not hers?
"the the private" -> the private
"she used" -> why not he?

Sec.1.1:
"organisation" -> British English (BE)
"Key Store [...] by the Subject" -> it has just been said that the 
subject will be called Bob! In fact, Alice and Bob are very little used 
and could easily be removed (except only in examples)
"Service" -> there is a dot missing at the end of the sentence
"Guard [...] authorised [...] authorisation" -> BE
"WebID Claim [...] be thought of a set" -> thought of as a set
"Subject Alternate Names" is sometimes written in normal font, sometimes 
in Courrier-like font
"between the a Subject Alternative name" -> between the subject 
alternative name
The example does not use a valid lexical part for the hexBinary value 
(separators of octets not allowed).
"WebID Certificate [...] at http://bob.example/profile Such [...]" -> 
first, bob.example is not a valid domain name, second, there is a 
missing dot after the IRI.
"WebID Profile [...] RDF-XML" -> RDF/XML
"serialisations" -> BE

Sec.2.1:
"The WebID URL itself ..." -> isn't it the WebID IRI?

Sec.2.1.1:
"can sends a keyrequest" -> can send a key request

Sec.2.2:
"personalise [...] serialisation [...] serialisation [...] 
serialisations" -> BE

Sec.2.2.1:
"foaf" -> FOAF

Sec.2.2.1.1:
"his key" -> why not hers or its (we talk about the subject, not 
necessarily a person)?

Sec.2.2.1.2:
"""foaf:name
The name that is most commonly used to refer to the individual or agent."""

why the most commonly used? foaf:name is just a name, common or not, and 
there can be several foaf:names for an entity.

Sec.2.2.2:
Update the reference to Turtle to W3C RDF 1.1 Turtle. Turtle will 
certainly be standardised before the WebID spec is completed.

Sec.2.2.3:
"The style="word-wrap" ... right of the screen." -> who cares? This 
sentence is useless.
"he MAY publish" -> why not she?

Sec.2.3:
"if she is the" -> if he/it?
"then he can" -> can she?

Sec.3.1:
"summarised" -> BE
"The guard requests of the TLS agent that it make [sic] a Certificate 
Request to the client." -> weird sentence...
"is the transformed into an RDF graph [RDF-MT]" -> why the hell is RDF 
semantics referenced here?
"in Processing the WebID Profile ." -> "in processing the WebID profile."

Sec.3.2.1:
"a few web pages without having authenticated" -> without being 
authenticated(?)

Sec.3.2.3:
"[section 7.4.4]" -> [Section 7.4.4] (capital 'S')
"on CA's signing [...] the CA's they were" -> CAs signing ... the CAs ...
"As far as possible it is important ..." -> As much as possible
"advertised" -> BE

Sec.3.2.4:
"it's meaning can be had by" -> can be gotten / can be obtained
"RDF defining URIs [RFC3986]" -> add colon after ref.

Sec.3.2.4.2:
"the query engine MUST support the D-entailment regime fpr 
xsd:hexBinary" -> this implies that the query engine MUST support RDFS 
entailment, since D-entailment subsumes RDFS entailement. This is 
unlikely to be the case.
"normalisation [...] normalise [...] normalised" -> BE

Sec.3.2.4.3:
"personalise [...] personlise" -> BE
"those friends friends" -> those friends' friends
"It is even be possible" -> it is even possible

B. Acknowledgments:
The list of acknowledged people should be put inline, as it is the case 
in all W3C specs.

C. References:
[RDF-SPARQL-QUERY] -> consider reference to SPARQL 1.1 (not yet 
standardised but quite stable already)
Why is there a referencec to RDFa 1.0 and to RDFa 1.1, both for the 
formal syntaxes and the primers?
[TURTLE-TR] -> should use RDF 1.1 Turtle



Best,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 16:53:32 UTC