W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Primer LCC review

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:07:10 +0000
To: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <30336.1042582030@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


Review of http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/


Summary: +1 to publish (only minor mostly wordings) - good work.


I've read Jan's comments and support most of them, so won't repeat.


Status: I assume "This is the current state of an ongoing work on the
Primer." will go.

2.1

The bit I had to read several times I guess is just hard to write:
  [[ Specifically, the part that identifies the thing the statement
    is about (the Web page in this example) is called the subject. ]
which has 6? clauses before it gets to the punchline, "the subject".
Rewording here is tricky, i'll have a go:
  [[ Specifically, the part called the <em>subject</em> identifies
    the thing the statement is about (the Web page in this example).]

just a suggestion.  Ditto for the others bits there. 

2.2

P4 "a bit later on" - add link?  add if a different section?

I also think the ex:index.html bit is rather odd.  the qnames for
predicates and classes is fine but maybe not for what might be called
(example) user resources.  I guess it isn't too important.

3.2

(near end)
"is replaced by an element whose name is the class name."
I think rather :
 "is replaced by an element whose name is the QName
  corresponding to the class URIref"

4

"names of the form rdf:_n, where n is an integer"
I've got burnt by that.  Really:
   where n is a decimal integer greater than zero, with no leading zeros.
(so rdf:_-1, rdf:_0 and rdf:_01 for example are not allowed)


4.1
(yes - example1.org example2.org are *not* reserved.  Only the
three top example.{com,org,net}.  I'm not sure about example.edu )

(last para) spelling: Committe => Committee

4.4
Unlike Jan, I'm happy to see rdf:value here still since it
re-confirms that the usage in M&S is still ok :)

5
Example 17 might look better using the typed node form, since that is
very typically used for RDF schemas and already introduced.  I'd
suggest adding an xml:base so you don't have to assume the URI of the
document; it would be good if that was a new best practice I think.

6.1
"(although here we've written the Dublin Core element name in lower case)"
- all DC elements are written in lower case, that is how they should
  be written in XML (and RDF/XML)

Example 25:
      <dc:identifier>urn:issn:1082-9873</dc:identifier>
not
      <dc:identifier rdf:resource="urn:issn:1082-9873"/>
?

6.2

I'm wondering if using these wanderlust.com urls is a good idea.
some of them don't work, such as http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/Corfu.jpg

Better to replace with wander.example.com ?

6.4

Very minor point; that screenshot is of the older W3C style.

--
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 17:09:45 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:20 EDT