Re: LeeF's comments (again)

Lee,

Great stuff, I'll keep these in mind for the next rev of the Primer.
Glad that you like this version better! We're closing in on the final
version, nothing major will change from here on.

-Ben

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> My apologies for the delay. I've reviewed the latest primer, and overall 
> think it is in great shape. I've replied to your specific questions below, 
> and then I have some editorial comments from my latest review at the end 
> of this mail.
> 
> Ben Adida wrote on 06/13/2007 01:33:31 PM:
> 
>> As for the following:
>>
>>> Summary of QUESTIONS FOR LeeF (and others):
>>> - is Section 2.5 clear enough now regarding the copy-and-paste'ability
>>> being improved by declaring namespaces more locally?
> 
> Yes, it sounds good, though I might change "desired" to "desirable" or 
> omit it altogether.
> 
>>> - is it now clearer how the subject is determined to be <> or a bnode?
> 
> Clearer, yes. I'd love to see a summary table (If foo, then bar is the 
> subject; if qux, then baz is the subject), but I don't think that needs to 
> be (or should be) in the primer.
> 
>>> - is Section 4's intro now clearer regarding changing the subject?
> 
> Yes. I still think you need to explain that the N3 "<>" syntax when you 
> first use it. Also, it's a bit confusing to me to use relative URLs (both 
> <> and </...>) in all of the example N3. That notation is useless without 
> noting what the base URI is, which I guess is the URL of the containing 
> HTML page?
> 
>>> - is the Primer's treatment of bnodes sufficient for a Primer?
> 
> Yes, I'm quite pleased with it as it is now.
>  
> 
> other editorial comments - some of them quite picky :)
> 
> \
> Throughout:
> 
> + W3C guidelines ( http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/#Terms ) require:
>   + 'Web' rather than 'web'
>   + 'markup' rather than 'mark-up'
> 
> Sec. 1:
> + Abstract talks about XHTML, then Sec. 1 talks about HTML
> + What does "compliant" mean? Perhaps a hyperlink?
> + Why "RDF 'content'" rather than "RDF content"?
> 
> Sec. 2.2:
> 
> + "exactly as this attribute was initially intended in HTML" sounds quite 
> defensive - does it add to the primer? There are a few other places in the 
> primer that seem to be arguing against an unseen and unknown RDFa 
> opponent, but this was the most egregious to me.
> 
> Sec. 2.6:
> 
> + "N3 notation" sounds redundant
> 
> + QNames - SPARQL makes sure to indicate that foo:bar is not a QName, but 
> a prefixed name. (Given that QNames represent a NS+local pair, rather than 
> a single URI.) I suppose this touches on CURIEs and the like, but I wanted 
> to mention it anyway. An alternative approach would use the term QName but 
> specify explicitly that "URIs within the RDF are constructed by 
> concatenating the namespace URI and local name derived from the QName."
> 
> Sec. 3.1:
> 
> + "Since photos are contributed by users with significant amount of 
> built-in structured data" -- I don't think it's the users that have 
> built-in structured data. :-)
> 
> Sec. 3.2:
> 
> + a number, e.g. "28" -> might be better without the quotation marks 
> around 28
> 
> + this is the first occurence of "<>" in the primer; would be good to have 
> a quick note about what it means.
> 
> + "A reader who knows about XML datatypes might, at this point in the 
> presentation, wonder what datatype these values will have." - Should that 
> be RDF datatypes? And I think "at this point in the presentation" could be 
> struck.
> 
> Sec. 5:
> 
> + Why "'one-level deep.'" rather than "one-level deep"?
> 
> 
> 
> hope this helps,
> Lee
>

Received on Friday, 15 June 2007 18:33:58 UTC