W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ldp-wg@w3.org > December 2013

ACTION-95 Review BP and Guidelines

From: Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:51:25 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOUJ7Jr-dyxRjAOq8vdz5fqXXfxb2=+yGbqYFvCJ4AVa+Fx9NQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "public-ldp-wg@w3.org" <public-ldp-wg@w3.org>
BP&G Editors,

I did a review of the BP&G document per ACTION-95 and believe this
completes my action.

I found it useful and easy to read.  I do not immediately see any missing
BP or G, though I'm going through a more detailed analysis of similar work
at OSLC and will suggest as the come up.

Here are some comments from specific sections.

#Abstract lower case the "I" in Implementing

#2.2 One key motivating case for ensuring 'rdf:type' is explicitly set is
it helps greatly with efficient and useful queries, such as "Show me all
bugs that ..."

#2.6 4th para "single document is a acceptable", remove extraneous "a"

#2.8 This sentence isn't valid:
  "The Range column in the tables below identifies the recommended
rdfs:range for the properties."
it should be replaced with something such as:
   "The Range/Datatype column in the tables below identifies the
recommended rdfs:range or rdfs:datatype for the properties."

  also should change heading "Range/DataType" to "Range/Datatype" in all
the table headings.

  rdfs:label - the Comment is no longer valid.  Even though RDFS defines
this for use in vocabulary documents, it has become common practice in use
it as a general purpose label.  I'd suggest saying that: "A general purpose
label".

Regards,
- Steve Speicher
Received on Thursday, 12 December 2013 15:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:54 UTC