W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2003

Re: Comments for WD-rdf-schema-20030123

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 08:06:29 -0500
To: lesch@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org, brian_mcbride@hp.com
Message-ID: <20030321130629.GD8053@tux.w3.org>

Susan,

Many thanks for your careful review of the RDF Schema spec,
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0373.html
...your careful read-through was as ever much appreciated.

To respond to your comments:

(i) 'Regarding the title, "the role of the RDF vocabulary description
language, RDF Schema," please choose one name and keep it capitalized.'

...we have opened an issue 'rename schema?' to track this, see
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#webont-01
The WebOnt group made a similar observation,
	we think that the title "RDF Vocabulary Description Language" 
	would be clearer, and make the difference from XML Schema 
	(used for validation) more evident.

Whatever we decide, I'll take note to keep it capitalized.

(ii) minor typos -- accepted for the editorial todo list, thanks.
One point of clarification:
you wrote, 's/working drafts', I assume you meant something like
's/working drafts/Working Drafts/'. Is that correct.

(iii) the plural issue and the abstract: i'm afraid I'm missing your 
point here. I've read the before/after paragraphs several times and they
look the same to me, though I might just be tired! I do note however that
we refer in the Abstract to the model and syntax spec. I'll take an 
editorial action to update that to be more RDFCore-era in tone.
Could you expand on the vocabulary/vocabularies suggestion?

(iv) re proposed deletion of first 9 paragraphs
This is interesting, I'm always sympathetic to the idea of short specs, but
it is a major change to the document, so will need formal working group
discussion. Brian, can you open an issue on this?

Thanks again,

cheers,

Dan
Received on Friday, 21 March 2003 08:06:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT