Review of SD document (ACTION-318)


Here are my comments regarding the SD document, as per ACTION-318

Besides the first comment, most of them are minor issues / comments.



* Section 2)

This service description should be made available in an RDF serialization, and may be provided embedded in HTML by RDFa, or other RDF representations by using content negotiation.

Was there a decision on the should / must for "service description should be made available in an RDF serialization".
If the description is not available in RDF, that's not really useful imo.

"embedded in HTML" -> (X)HTML

"or other RDF representations by using content negotiation." => I'd suggest "and SHOULD use content-negociation if available in other RDF representation"

* Section 3)

The SPARQL Service Description namespace IRI is:

Probably better as an hyperlink.
It currently redirects to a plain page that links to the RDF/XML or Turtle specs, but I would expect at least an HTML description of the vocab (which is the SD doc itself)
Could we have redirected to SD document (if no specific header, and keep current conneg for .ttl / .rdf)

"An instance of sd:Language represents a subset of the SPARQL language" => I'd suggest "An instance of sd:Language represents one of the SPARQL languages"

* Section 3.4)

Descriptions of domain / ranges (such as "sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is an rdfs:subPropertyOf sd:feature. The rdfs:domain of sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is sd:Service. The rdfs:range of sd:defaultEntailmentRegime is sd:EntailmentRegime.") may be more readable using bullet points / several lines

Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <> .

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 11:29:11 UTC