Re: Comments on the Schema document draft

On 06 Dec 2013, at 17:32 , Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.

Ok

> 
>> - 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.

Well, adding anchors to the MT document should not be a big deal... 

> 
>> 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.

:-) O.k.

> 
>> - 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.

I am very unhappy having references to the 2004 Primer. That could become very disturbing; I would prefer (just as for the other documents) that the new Primer document would make the 2004 version obsolete and it should be 'hidden'.

I see two possibilities: either you remove any kind of reference (ie, remove that sentence altogether) or copy the collection example into the new primer and refer to that one.


> 
>> - 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.

See my previous comment: I do not think we should refer to the 2004 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.

Works for me.

> 
>> - Knit-picking: shouldn't the header of section 5 say 'Other
>> Vocabularies', rather than 'Other Vocabulary'?
> 
> For me "Other vocabulary" looks more appropriate.

As said: knit-picking. Drop the comment:-)

> 
>> Otherwise this looks good!
> 
> Thanks for the review! Editor's draft has been updated.

Thanks Guus

Ivan

> 
> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 


----
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