W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: a request for help

From: Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 16:51:40 -0400
Message-ID: <005901c441d0$ea805b20$68051e80@IRONGEAR>
To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>, <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>

Hello all,

The followings are  some of the points I noticed.

# I'll post some of the rest in the form of a reply to other's messages.

(1) A wrong reference to the linked document

The document which is linked from the first link in the section 5: (Related
Technologies and Standards) is
NOT " RDF Query and Rules Framework", BUT "RDF Query Survey."

It IS the document which surveys the existing languages and the label "RDF
Query and Rules Framework" should be corrected.

The "RDF Query and Rules Framework" is a document that surveys the issues to
be considered in RDF Query and Rules,
which is located in http://www.w3.org/2001/11/13-RDF-Query-Rules/terms.

BTW, I find the document (= RDF Query and Rules Framework)  quite useful and
suggestive, while in our disccusion it has seldom been referred.

I'm afraid it's a little bit too late, but don't we have to go through the
document, I mean, check if the issues in the document should be in the
requirements or design objects?

(2) Glossary?

Didn't we have a glossary of the terms in the document in earlier versions?
Where has it gone?

I think we should have one.

(3) Less phrase patterns in the Requirements?

What's the difference among the followings?

+ The query language must include the capability to...
+ It must be possible for queries to ...
+ The query language must make it possible to...
+ The query language or portocol must be able to ...

If no difference, less divergence will cause less ambiguity, I think.

(4)  on 2.1 Finding an Email Address

Readers should very naturally wonder what would happen  if there are two or
more matches.
So, if we agree with what would happen, we'd better mention the case.

(5) on 2.2 Finding Information about Motorcycle Parts

[[[ dependent parts that must be be replaced at the same time, as well as
other parts that may need to be replaced at the same time.]]]

Which are those in the example code?
Are they all the ones that should be replaced?
We should either cut off " , as well as other parts that may need to be
replaced at the same time"  or add such item into the example code.

(6) on 2.4 Monitoring News Events (Personal Information Management)

It could be better
 + to change the (sub)title to (Multimedia)
 + to change [[[ to record every television show about that news story
automaticaly using the Electronic Program Guides (EPGs)]]]
    into [[[ to record every television show that could feature the news
story using Electronic Programme Guides (EPGs) and make an abridged version
by extracting the very spots featuring it, using more detailed RDF
description of the programme]]]
+ (and even) to make "a particular news story" a concrete expression like

(7) on 2.5 Avoiding Traffic Jams(Transportation)

It would be  more natural to suppose a car navigation system to do the work
described in the use case, instead of the cellular phone.

Best regards,
Yoshio Fukushige
Received on Monday, 24 May 2004 16:51:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:00:26 UTC