Comments on the Schema document draft

Guus,

As agreed, I have sent you a version of the index.html with a few spelling and stylistic issues handled. I have also changed a leftover reference to the 2004 Concept (for language tag) in favour of a reference to the new concept document.

Other remarks:

- For rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral: If we define those to be informative in the concept document (something to be decided for the PR transition but, I guess, the original reasons why they were put at risk remain), than a note should be added in this respect in this document, too.

- The last sentence in section 4.7 says: "Multilingual documentation is supported through use of the language tagging facility of RDF literals." I wonder whether it is better to refer to the langString type at this point. There is a similar reference in 3.6. 

- Containers, collections, and reification are defined in the MT document as non-normative. Accordingly, I think that the sections 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 should be marked as non-normative (5.4 remains normative). 

It may also be worth referring to the MT document explicitly in section 5.2 and 5.3, too, so that the reader could find any definition referring to those quickly. 

I also wonder whether, in the tables 6.1 and 6.2 the non-normative terms should be marked as such (but I am not sure it is necessary, just raising the question)

- The intro sentence of Section 5.2 says: "The reader is referred to the collections section of the RDF 2004 primer for an informal introduction to collections with examples." Is there a section in the new Primer to refer to? There is a similar reference in section 5.1, first para, second sentence.

- Second intro sentence of Section 5.2 refers to the RDF/XML syntax's shorthand. I think it would be better to refer to Turtle; even if we keep to RDF/XML, the reference should be updated.

- Section 5.4.3 refers to "illustrated in example 21 of the RDF 1.0 primer". This should be updated.

- Intro of section 6 refers to "originally defined in the RDF Model and Syntax specification [RDFMS]". I guess this becomes irrelevant here, and we could just remove it.

- I think adding the participants of the current working group in the acknowledgement part would be fine, just as done in the other documents.

- Knit-picking: shouldn't the header of section 5 say 'Other Vocabularies', rather than 'Other Vocabulary'?

Otherwise this looks good!

Thanks

Ivan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf