W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

Re: Comments on the Schema document draft

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 17:32:48 +0100
Message-ID: <52A1FC30.2070300@vu.nl>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


On 05-12-13 13:03, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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.

OK, I added an issue to the doc, so we are sure to track.

>
> - 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.

There is a link to the relevant section in Concepts. I think that should
be enough. I'd like to do only the minimal changes.

> - 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).

Done.

> 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.

Do you mean to link all terms to the relevant part in Semantics? I don't 
think the Semantics document has anchors for all these. I suggest to 
leave it as is.

> 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)

I think the risk of me creating inconsistencies is higher :), so suggest 
not to do this.

> - 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.

There is nothing in the new Primer on this. So this is the only option.

> - 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.

Updated the link to point to Sec. 2.8 of Turtle.

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

Not sure what you mean. This was updated by Peter (originally, it 
pointed to the wrong example). We have no example of the use of 
rdf:value in the new Primer.

> - 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.

Deleted. Also added links from all table entries to the relevant 
subsections.

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

Let's do this at REC time, and then insert the same list in all docs.

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

For me "Other vocabulary" looks more appropriate.

> Otherwise this looks good!

Thanks for the review! Editor's draft has been updated.

Guus

>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 6 December 2013 16:33:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:36 UTC