- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:57:34 -0400
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 05/30/2012 03:44 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > 1. The Introduction of the API spec is mostly a copy-paste from the > syntax spec. Remove the duplication, and replace it with a link if > appropriate. Don't force people to read the same thing twice just so > that they are sure they're not missing something essential. Ok, I'll remove the duplication and re-write the introduction to be more specific to the JSON-LD API. > 2. The API spec needs its own introduction that explains what's in > the API spec. This needs at least one sentence for each of the > algorithms and other major sections of the spec, explaining what > that thing is and how it fits into the bigger picture of publishing, > consuming and processing JSON-LD. A quick overview of the document's > contents. The current lack of such a high-level overview in the API > spec is a major flaw, and makes the document almost inaccessible to > JSON-LD outsiders. I'd consider this a blocker for FPWD publication > of the API spec. I'll add a high-level overview of why each method exists. > 3. The API spec should probably have one of those yellow Issue boxes > near the beginning stating that the scope of the document, and what > exactly is going to be included and excluded, is still somewhat > unclear. (This is just to make clear that agreeing to FPWD > publication does not necessary mean we agree to everything that's in > there; RDF-WG members will need some time to review and understand > the spec and how it all hangs together before being able to make > informed commentary on what should and shouldn't be included.) I will add that. > 4. The API spec should have one of those yellow Issue boxes pointing > out that the WebIDL's terminology needs better alignment with RDF > Concepts. Yep, will do. > 5. My understanding is that the two “Contributing” sections in the > two specs need to be changed to reflect the CG-to-WG transition of > the documents. Yes, the assumption is that would have to change before the FPWD is made. Tracking all of these comments in this issue: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/127 -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm Website for Developers Launched http://digitalbazaar.com/2012/02/22/new-payswarm-alpha/
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2012 14:58:30 UTC