W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > September 2007

RE: [ALL] Review requested for "Cool URIs"

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:56:01 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852012E58ED@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Thomas Baker" <baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de>, "SWD Working Group" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Cc: <susie.stephens@oracle.com>, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Please find below my comments on the 'Cool URIs for the Semantic Web' IG Note, 
as requested earlier. Please note that I did NOT take into account Vit's review 

The IG note 'Cool URIs for the Semantic Web' [1]
by Leo Sauermann, Richard Cyganiak and Max Völkel
suggest basically two ways how to publish RDF-based
descriptions on the Web. 

Although the document is in a good shape and certainly
is of great help for developers to understand the
issues related to publishing RDF vocabularies, I see a major
problem regarding the focus. 

There seems to be an implicit assumption that the vocabulary
is published externally serialised using RDF/XML or an alike 
serialisation. The question now is how vocabularies should be
treated that are defined 'inline', say, using RDFa; see for
example a recent post by Dan Brickely [2] regarding FOAF.

Will the proposed recipes (hash and slash) still be applicable
in the XHTML+RDFa setup? Is there a need for a third option?
I'd definitely want to see these issues addressed.

My comments in detail read as follows.

 +  A 'Scope' section right after the Abstract would
    help to identify the intended audience.

 + In Sec. 1 you write ' ... URIs and URLs share the same syntax ... '.
   Please, be more specific here; add references to the according RFCs
   (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt and http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt)

 + In Sec. 1, between the paragraph 3 and 4 there seems to be a logical break, IMHO.

 + In Sec. 1, the last paragraph could go for example in the 'Scope' section.

 + Sec. 4 heading - please rephrase to something less marketing-like :)

 + In Sec. 4.2 the Fig. 4 seems a bit lost. Please provide more explanation and put in context.

 + Sec. 4.4 needs a major rewrite. For example add a proper reference to CHIPS and explain it.
   See for example the 'Manual of Style' [3] for how to reference ....
 + Sec. 4.6 would definitely benefit from references and some more details ...

 + Sec. 6.1: the sentence 'For a more complete list, see here.' needs to be rewritten;
   see also [4]. Put a proper reference as well into the sentence 
  'The problems with new URI schemes are discussed at length by Thompson and Orchard.'

 + Sec 6.2: The sentence 'Regarding FOAF's practice of avoiding URIs for people,
   we agree with Tim Berners-Lee: "Go ahead and give yourself a URI. You deserve it!"'
   seems not appropriate to me. Though I'm with you I don't see how this fits into this section.
   Please reformulate it :)

 + Sec. 9: Can you please check the IPR issues. I'm note sure if this is in accordance 
   with W3C policies (e.g., [5]) 

 + As noted in the header this IG Note needs to be run through
   the pub rules checker [6]

[1] https://gnowsis.opendfki.de/repos/gnowsis/papers/2006_11_concepturi/html/cooluris_sweo_note.html 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Aug/0164.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2001/06/manual/
[4] http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere
[5] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-documents-20021231
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/07/pubrules


 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Baker
>Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 5:39 PM
>To: SWD Working Group
>Cc: susie.stephens@oracle.com; Ivan Herman
>Subject: [ALL] Review requested for "Cool URIs"
>Dear all,
>The document "Cool URIs for the Semantic Web" [1] is being
>prepared for publication as a W3C Interest Group Note by
>the Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group [2].
>The note covers issues of relevance to both "Recipes" and
>"Vocabulary Management".
>The document has already been reviewed extensively by various
>people, including members of TAG, but SWEO would like Semantic
>Web Deployment Working Group to indicate approval before its
>publication -- if possible, _before_ our face-to-face meeting on 
>8-9 October.
>I would like to put this on the agenda for the next telecon
>(September 11) and will ask for volunteer reviewers at that time.
>[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/
>Tom Baker - tbaker@tbaker.de - baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de
Received on Monday, 24 September 2007 07:56:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:52 UTC