Re: ACTION-95 Review BP and Guidelines

Thank you SteveS for the review. We are now in the process of addressing
the comments from you and Miguel in the BP document.

Best Regards,
Nandana

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Steve Speicher <sspeiche@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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   rdfs:label - the Comment is no longer valid.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
>