W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Primer sanity check

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:26:17 -0500
Message-ID: <401E6C19.8080005@acm.org>
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

I've gone through the Primer 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/, CVS 1.30 
and have found the following problems (or possible problems):

1.  The minutes say that links should go to the shadow TR docs (and I 
assume the above Primer URL is an example of such a link).  Assuming 
that is true, in the reference [RDF-CONCEPTS], the first ("cite") link 
is to the 1215 TR, not to shadow TR space.

2.  I just received an external comment to the effect that there's a 
typo in Section 2.2:  "synonymn" should be "synonym".

3.  The SOTD description of the earlier RDF documents (RDF MS and RDF 
Schema) this new set replaces cites the 1999 PR version of RDF Schema as 
being replaced.  However, the Primer discussion of these earlier 
documents at the end of Section 1 and the Primer reference [RDF-S] cite 
the 2000 CR version of RDF Schema (Test Cases reference [RDF-SCHEMA] 
also cites the 2000 CR version rather than the 1999 PR version).  This 
may create some confusion.

4.  For completeness, I also repeat some issues I raised in an earlier 
message (sent before the Friday telecon):

a.  The boilerplate just before the Abstract says "The English version 
of this specification is the only normative version."  But the Primer 
isn't normative.

b.  Similarly, under "Status of this Document", the second para says "It 
is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a 
normative reference from another document".  I know this is boilerplate, 
but once again, the Primer isn't normative.

c.  "Status of this Document" only cites changes since the PR working 
draft.  (a) Are the other change log entries to be deleted?  (b) If so, 
there are anchors in the text that some of these entries point to (to 
highlight where the changes were made).  Should those anchors be removed 
or left in place (IOW, how clean do you want the source to be)?

d.  In Section 2.1 (and also in Appendix B) the URL that the text 
"Extensible Markup Language" points to is a dated version of the XML 
spec, but not the dated version cited in the references.  So the URL 
will have to either be updated or removed (leaving just the pointer to 
the [XML] reference).

5. I also note that the RDF Vocabulary document 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-schema-20030117/, while not 
yet converted to the draft Rec form, has reference [RDF-PRIMER] which 
links to the 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/ version, 
but the text refers to the 05 September 2003 Working Draft.

--Frank
Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 10:26:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:04:05 UTC