Review of rdf11-concepts ED

Overall, I find RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax to be a very good 
improvement compared to RDF 2004. Appart from the issues that are 
clearly marked as such in the document, I have very little concerns.

Here are the detailed remarks:

Section 1.6:
The title still has the term "G-boxes"
"As RDF graphs are sets of triples, they can be merged easily" -> why 
being a set makes merging easier?
"An RDF dataset is a collection of RDF graphs." -> not a collection in 
the mathematical sense (but not a problem here, more problematic in 
Section 4).
"All but one are named graphs associated with an IRI. The last one is 
the unnamed default graph" -> "The last one" suggests an order on the 
graphs. Suggestion: "All but one are named graphs, each associated with 
an IRI.

Section 1.7:
"What graphs exactly are considered to have these relationships is 
specified by an entailment regime [[RDF-MT]] combined with a datatype 
map." -> rephrase
<a title="vocabulary"> -> <a title="RDF vocabulary">

Section 1.8:
"A concrete RDF syntaxes" -> "A concrete RDF syntax" or "Concrete RDF 
"different ordering of statmenets" -> statements

Section 3.6:
"See also: IRI equality, literal equality, blank node equality." -> IRI 
and literal equalities are explicitly defined, but not bnode equality

Section 4:
"An RDF dataset is a collection of RDF graphs" -> not in the 
mathematical definition of "collection"
Suggestion: "An RDF dataset comprises a collection of RDF graphs and 
formally consists of:"

Section 5.2:
Instead of "Return domfrag.normalize()", maybe say "The litteral is then 
mapped to the value returned by domfrag.normalized()."

Section 5.3:
same as in Section 5.2

Section 5.4:
"It can be seen as a function from IRIs to datatypes." -> rather, it can 
be seen as a partial function (as a matter of fact, it *is* a partial 
"Other specifications that MAY impose additional constraints on the 
datatype map, for example, require support for certain datatypes." -> 
Other specifications MAY (remove "that")

Section 6:
"The semantics of fragment identifiers are defined in RFC 3986" -> The 
semantics ... is defined (RFC 3986 defines one meaning of fragment 
identifiers, right?)
"... RFC 3986 [RFC3986]: They ..." -> they (capital letter only at the 
beginning of a sentence. A word after colone is not the beginning of a 
sentence. I realise that there are other occurrences of this error in 
the document, e.g., Sec.1 ("including: Serialization"), Sec.1.5 
("atemporal: It does not", "following ways: An IRI"), Sec.3.2 ("IRI 
equality: Two ...", "Relative IRIs: Some", "IRI normalization: 
Interoperability", "include: Uppercase"), Sec.3.3 ("Literal equality: 
Two"), Sec.4 ("comprises: Exactly"), Sec.5.5 ("literal is: If the ...").
The last two paragraphs are partly redundant.

Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66

Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2012 14:22:36 UTC