Re: ACTION-95 Review BP and Guidelines

Hi, Nandana,

Could you let me know when you wrap up the current round of revisions? I
still have an Action to add some new commentary, but I'd rather just wait
for you.

 - Cody

On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <> wrote:

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   rdfs:label - the Comment is no longer valid.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

Cody Burleson
Enterprise Web Architect, Base22
Mobile: +1 (214) 537-8782
Skype: codyburleson

* <>*

*Check my free/busy time.

Received on Monday, 16 December 2013 18:45:12 UTC