- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:43:56 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
In preparation for the F2F, I'm doing a readthrough of Assoicating Resources with Namespaces [1]. Here are a few comments -------- Section 1: > is at the location of the namespace URI itself I have no problem with what this is trying to say, but do we really want to imply that a URI has a "location"? [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments-2007-11-13/ ------- Section 1 > We: > > 1. > > Define a conceptual model for identifying related > resources that is simple enough to garner community consensus > as a reasonable abstraction for the problem. > 2. > > Show how RDDL 1.0 is one possible concrete syntax for this model. > 3. > > Show how other concrete syntaxes could be defined and > identified in a way that would preserve the model. > > We'll define this model using (editorial) The list is in the present tense, the sentence following it is future tense. -------- Section 2 > If an application can obtain this model from the document that > it gets from the namespace URI, then it can find the relevant > related resources. (It may also, of course, find the relevant > related resources more directly if it has a native > understanding of the format of the document.) Overall I like this, and you've already generally warned that explicit use of RDF is not required, but many readers will misunderstand the quote above as requiring an RDF-based representation, I'm not sure but might it be worth the trouble to say something like: If an application can obtain this model from the document that it gets from the namespace URI (either directly because the retrieved document is an RDF format such as application/rdf+xml, or indirectly through use of technologies such as GRDDL or RDFa), then it can find the relevant related resources. (It may also, of course, find the relevant related resources more directly if it has a native understanding of the format of the document.) ------- Section 2: > one for the purpose of normative, and the non-normative, reference. (typo?) one for the purpose of normative, and the >other for< non-normative, reference. ------- ....Arrived Vancouver so need to stop now. Hope this is useful as a start. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 01:43:13 UTC