W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Guide: review - boring (this review not the guide)

From: Smith, Michael K <michael.smith@eds.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:55:23 -0500
Message-ID: <B8E84F4D9F65D411803500508BE3221410D4453F@USPLM207>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Thanks, Jeremy.  I appreciate the detailed read.  Invaluable help.

Those suggestions not mentioned below, and they were numerous, I
fixed per your recommendation.

- Mike

> Summary: Mike's spellchequer needs to have an RDF/XML mode.

YES!  Please send one ASAP.

> History section - move to appendix?

TBD

> SubclassOf is the fundamental
> sp: <code>subClassOf</code> even at the beginning of sentence?

Modfied, but this is one of those things I vacillate on.  Anyone know
what the approved English usage is?

> <owl:Thing rdf:about="VIN:CENTRAL-COAST-LOCATION">
>   <type rdf:resource="VIN:CALIFORNIA-REGION"/>
> </owl:Thing>

The raw 'type' was a typo.

I have been somewhat confused about namespace usage as define by
RDF/XML (as you can tell).  I will fix these.  

It is still not 100% clear to me how this works.  There are a number
of things that seem to be permitted syntactically, that don't seem to
have an interpretation.  I am probably missing a restriction
somewhere.

 rdf:ID="VIN:FOO"     (IDsymbol is an XML Name.)

Where is this ruled out?  Or is it permitted and if so what does it
mean?

 rdf:about="FOO"      (rel_path)
 rdf:about="FOO#BOO"  (rel_path + fragment)
 rdf:about="VIN:FOO"  (absolute URI with opaque part)

While the URI document (http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2396.txt)
refers to the prefix as a scheme, it is not clear to me how/where
scheme-ness is checked.  Where are these URI's ruled out by RDF?  Or
are they permitted?

This is a problem we are going to encounter.  The RDF syntax
definition is spread across 3 documents.  Ours will presumably be
across 4.  While I know this is part of the wonderful distibuted 
nature of the web, yech.

> references
> can I suggest referencing the new RDF specs rather than the old ones.
> We could even ask RDF Core to publish a syntax doc with
> rdf:parseType="Collection" in it ... (I believe its in the editor's
draft).

Copying and pasting from old docs.  I updated the RDFS reference.  My
intent was to point to the standards as listed on the W3C RDF web
site.  Presumably we want pointers to both the current recommendation
and some forthcoming version, unless the recommendation changes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 1:56 PM
To: Jeremy Carroll; Smith, Michael K; webont
Subject: RE: Guide: review - boring (this review not the guide)



Oops, missed one

Moderately Boring
=================

references
can I suggest referencing the new RDF specs rather than the old ones.
We could even ask RDF Core to publish a syntax doc with
rdf:parseType="Collection" in it ... (I believe its in the editor's draft).
Received on Monday, 30 September 2002 19:55:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT