SKOS comment: Reference - editorial errors and problems (Ch. 1)

The SKOS Reference at http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-skos-reference-20090317/
contains a number of editorial errors:


* In the Abstract section, the text says:

     SKOS also provides a light weight, intuitive language for ...

   That should be "light-weight" (or possibly  "lightweight").


* In the Status of This Document section, the text says:

      ... revert to the original URI as 2004 ...

   As worded, that makes no sense.  Was it meant to mean "... the same URI as
   in 2004" or "the original URI from 2004"?


In section 1.1:

* The text says:

     The Simple Knowledge Organization System is a data sharing standard ..

   That should be "... data-sharing standard ..."

* In many places, the abbreviations "i.e." and "e.g." are not followed by a
   comma as is standard.

* The text says:

      RDFS and OWL are formally defined knowledge representation languages,
      providing ways of expressing meaning that are amenable to computation;
      meaning that complements and gives structure to information already
      present in the Web [RDF-PRIMER] [OWL-GUIDE].

   That semicolon should be a comma (since the part after it is not enough
   to be a complete sentence).

* The text says:

     The accumulated experience and best practices in the library and
     information sciences ... is obviously complementary ...

   The verb should be plural to match the subject.

* The text says:

     ... making the accumulated experience and wisdom ... accessible,
     applicable within and transferable to the technological context of
     the Semantic Web ...

   In that structure, the verb "accessible" is missing its preposition "to."
   Rather than using the slightly awkward-sounding "accessible to, applicable
   within and transferable to the ... context," that could be simply
   "accessible, applicable,and transferable to the ... context" unless
   the authors really mean "applicable within" rather than "applicable to."


* In section 1.3, the text says:

     Much can be gained from using thesauri etc. "as-is".  as ...

   The word "etc." is missing the usual commas before and after it.

   There are other similar cases elsewhere in the document.


In section 1.4:

* The text says:

     Tools can then be implemented which "check" whether some or all of
     these integrity conditions are met ...

   The author appears to mean the regular meaning of "check," so the quotes
   seem to be extraneous.

   Some of the other cases of quoting in the document also seem to be
   unnecessary of extraneous.


* The text says:

     These integrity conditions are part of the formal definition of the
     classes and properties of the SKOS data model, however they are
     presented separately from other parts of the formal definition because
     they serve a different purpose.

   That comma should be a semicolon (or a sentence break).

* The text says:

     All other statements within the definition of the SKOS data model
     serve only to support logical inferences (see also the next sub-section).

   That should be:

     ... inferences.  (See also the next sub-section.)

* The text says:

     ... or by a hybrid strategy (draw inferences using an RDFS or OWL reasoner,
     then search for patterns in the inferred graph).

   That should probably be

     ... or by a hybrid strategy (drawing inferences ..., then searching ..).


In section 1.5:

* The text says:

     There are other, alternate ways ...

   That should be "... alternative ..."

* The text says:

     In this case, the graph above (RDFS and OWL Full) entails the
     following graph.

   Was that meant to say "... (in RDFS and OWL Full) ..."?

* The text says:

     " ... the open-world assumption give license ..."

* The text says:

     ... using thesauri, classification schemes etc. side-by-side with formal
     ontologies...

   (The "etc." should have commas before and after it in that case.)


In section 1.6

* The text says:

     " ... see discussion about skos:hasTopConcept ..."

   That should probably be "... see the discussion ..."

* The text says:

     In such cases, usage conventions may be suggested, or specializations of
     the SKOS vocabulary may be used in order to enforce constraints (see the
     SKOS Primer).

  It's not clear, but it seems that the comma is imbalanced (that there should
  be a corresponding comma between "used" and "in order."


In section 1.7, the text says:

     This set of URIs comprises the SKOS vocabulary.

   That use of "comprises" is backwards.  (The whole comprises its parts.
   The parts do not comprise the whole.)
In section 1.7.1, the text says:

     ... lack of standard URI for some class ...

   It appears that that should be "... lack of a standard URI ..."


In section 1.7.2, the text says:

    Full URIs are cited ... enclosed by angle brackets. For example,
    <http://example.org/ns/example>.

  That should be:

    Full URIs are cited ... enclosed by angle brackets, for example,
    <http://example.org/ns/example>.

  (because the "for example" parts are not complete sentences).




Daniel
-- 
(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]