W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Primer: new version

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 Mar 2002 13:45:51 -0600
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1016048752.5227.381.camel@dirk>
On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 20:45, Frank Manola wrote:
> A new version of the Primer is available at 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/09/rdfprimer/rdf-primer-20020312.html
> It obviously (as you'll see from the various notes inside) has a way to 
> go, but as far as I'm concerned it's suitable for a WD decision on 
> Friday

I took a quick look.

At first, it seemed too long... 30 printed pages,
according to my browser's print preview thingy.

But taking a slightly closer look, I like
the organization and the level of detail.

some comments at the TOC level
(a copy for reference:)

Table of contents

1. Introduction
2. Making Statements About Resources
2.1 Identifiers: Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)
2.2 Documents: Extensible Markup Language (XML)
2.3 The RDF Model
2.4 Structured Property Values

3. An XML Syntax for RDF
4. Defining RDF Vocabularies: RDF Schema
4.1 Core Classes
4.2 Core Properties
4.3 Constraints

5. RDF In The Field: Some RDF Application

5.1 Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
5.3 Intelligent Routing
5.4 RSS: RDF Site Summary 1.0

6. Other Parts of RDF
7. References
8. Acknowledgements

Each of the "other parts of RDF" probably deserves
a spot in the TOC. and it's other parts
of the RDF specification, not of RDF.

"Making statements about resources"... hm...
maybe "describing things with properties"?
no... not much of an improvement.

I wonder about section 5, "in the field"...
I'm not sure how to word my reservations.
"why isn't my application in there?" is
one of them. e.g. DAML. Hmm... no critical objections
at this point, but I could live without
section 5, at least in the 1st release.

There are quite a few typos and @@'s and such...
I hope many of those can be addressed before

But in case I don't make it to the telcon Friday, I think
this is great work, and if the editors are
willing to publish it, I support them.

> (I was sensitive to the fact that folks said they would like to 
> see it earlier rather than later).

For which, thanks!

>  I'm still going to be doing 
> additional work on the next version in the meantime, so I'll be happy to 
> take comments before Friday as well.
> --Frank
> PS:  You'll see I didn't get the fragment identifiers material in (and 
> there's a note about it in the text).  I need to think some more about 
> where to put this, since it may involve a bit of reorganization (which 
> might not be too bad for other reasons as well).

I hope not too much reorganization. I kinda like the way it's
organized now.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 14:45:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC