Re: ACTION-95 Review BP and Guidelines

Team,

Please be advised that I got through most, but not all of the revisions
based on the recent review of the Best Practices and Guidelines from Steve
S., Miguel, and Nandana. These have been very excellent comments and I know
they are making the document better. I am very grateful for the generous
help you've been providing. I will get to the remaining few items as soon
as possible.

Nandana, I've made my own notes in your Google doc. I got about 80% through
it today. That's very helpful, so let's just keep collaborating in that for
side notes.

- Cody




On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Nandana Mihindukulasooriya <
nmihindu@fi.upm.es> 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 <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   rdfs:label - the Comment is no longer valid.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
>>
>
>


-- 
Cody Burleson
Enterprise Web Architect, Base22
Mobile: +1 (214) 537-8782
Skype: codyburleson
Email: cody@base22.com
Blog: codyburleson.com

* <http://base22.com>*

*Check my free/busy time.
<http://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=cody.burleson%40base22.com&ctz=America/Chicago%20>*