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

Re: review of RDF Core documents

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2004 16:39:07 -0500
Message-Id: <200402082139.i18Ld7Ou018325@roke.hawke.org>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
Cc: em@w3.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org


Thanks for the careful review, Frank.

As I understand the process, these kinds of changes are made (at this
point, after PR) at the discretion of the Director, rather than by WG
decision.  However, it would be good to know if anyone on the WG sees
any problem with any of these changes.  They all seem good to me,
except the idea that the SOTD should say something about normativity.
As I understand it, to the extent that normativity is conveyed
explicitely, it should be in the document main text, or in
parenthetical expressions on the section titles.  And that kind of
change is potentially substantive, and so not appropriate here and
now.

> Primer Rec CVS 1.44
> -------------------
> 
> All the SOTD and References look OK now.  The Change Log is OK.
> 
> Section 7.2 of the Primer, in describing Test Cases, says
> 
> "The test cases are not a complete specification of RDF, and are not 
> intended to take precedence over the normative specification documents."
> 
> On thinking about the discussion on the meaning of  "normative" earlier 
> last week, I suppose someone could read this as saying that Test Cases 
> is *not* normative.  If that's a concern, simply changing this to:
> 
> "The test cases are not a complete specification of RDF, and are not 
> intended to take precedence over the *other* specification documents."
> 
> would be a simple fix.  Leaving this alone doesn't bother me if it 
> doesn't bother anyone else.

I like this change.

> Concepts Rec CVS 1.70
> ---------------------
> 
> SOTD:  This SOTD is the same as that in the Primer;  there is nothing 
> here that indicates the normative status of the Concepts spec.  All the 
> links and other material seem OK.
> 
> References:  seem OK
> 
> In the Change Log, under "References", there's a "TODO" at the end.  To 
> reduce confusion, this should probably either be done or removed.

I like this change.

> Syntax Rec CVS 1.64
> -------------------
...
> The Change Log lists changes as of the 23 January 2003 last call WD, not 
> the PR version.

I'm ambivalent on this.   There's not wrong with listing old changes,
although they are a bit of clutter.

> Test Cases Rec CVS 1.83
> -----------------------
> 
> The Change Log lists changes since the 20010912 WD, not just the PR version.

Ambivalent, ditto old changes.

> There is also an Appendix B, "Open Issues" that has a bullet "complete 
> the test cases", which suggests the Test Cases document is not complete. 
>   This should probably be deleted (both here and in the Table of Contents).

I like this change.

> Vocabulary Rec CVS 1.64
> -----------------------
> 

> The Change Log lists changes as of the 23 January 2003 last call WD, not 
> the PR version.

Ambivalent, ditto old changes.

    -- sandro
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2004 16:37:23 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Sunday, 8 February 2004 16:37:26 EST