W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > June 2001

Issue http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-editorial

From: Ora Lassila <daml@lassila.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 06:46:54 -0400
Message-ID: <3B17728B.D0F3781C@lassila.org>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Some thoughts on how to fix the issues under "rdfms-editorial: General
editorial comments" (http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-editorial):

Issue: parseType="Resource"

It has been suggested that an example would make the spec clearer on the
usage of parseType="Resource". We can simply add a reference to a later
example (namely, the one at the end of Section 7.3). I would also reword
the bit about other values of parseType to read "Other values of
parseType are reserved for future versions and extensions of RDF" (as
opposed to "future specifications"; "extensions" takes care of what we
did in DAML with parseType="daml:collection").

Issue: the "v namespace" prefix

In the spec's examples we use several "fictional" namespaces, and mostly
they are undeclared. Given that we now have several well established
namespaces (e.g., DC & RSS), we can cosnsistently use some of those
throughout the spec. We should also declare namespaces in every example
(personally, I think at least in every example which has an "rdf:RDF"
element, as a convention).

As has been pointed out, "description.org" specifically is not a good
"sample" URI since this is a real domain belonging to an organization
promoting more research for Retinitis Pigmentosa. Again, let's use
"real" URIs.

Regards,

	- Ora

-- 
Ora Lassila  mailto:daml@lassila.org  http://www.lassila.org/
Received on Friday, 1 June 2001 06:46:54 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:01 EDT