- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 17:43:42 +0000
- To: "Martin G. Skjæveland" <martige@ifi.uio.no>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, public-rdb2rdf-comments@w3.org
Martin, > On 24 Feb 2016, at 13:47, Martin G. Skjæveland <martige@ifi.uio.no> wrote: >> But there are numerous issues with the current document, so this would be a slightly bigger project. > > Not knowing what these issues are, would it not be possible to do a first quick fix by removing the causes of the inconsistencies and let the next version just be a mere vocabulary listing? I think that would be a good idea. Other issues I’ve spotted: - rr:IRI and friends are classes but should be instances - rr:constant should be rdf:Property but is owl:ObjectProperty - More questionable restrictions - Some terms have labels and comments, others don’t (in the .ttl — some of the comments and labels from the HTML+RDFa don’t seem to have made it across) - poor capitalisation in labels - typos in comments (“termpType”) - no links back to the spec It’s unfortunate that the WG, including myself as an editor of the spec, haven’t taken greater care in improving the namespace document before closing shop. > I would be interesting in joining (also) the slightly bigger project of making a richer version of the ontology. Let’s see first if we can get more information on the toolchain used to produce the current versions. Richard
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 17:44:05 UTC