W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webid@w3.org > October 2012

Comments on current editor's draft (Web 1.0, 3rd October 2012)

From: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:53:02 +0200
Message-ID: <5086CB6E.9070103@emse.fr>
To: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
These are small comments on the current version of the WebID spec.

The document is obviously not finished yet and will certainly evolve a 
lot still until it gets to a stable state.

General comments:
  1.  all current W3C specs in the Semantic Web activity now use IRI, 
you should replace URI with IRI everywhere, I think;
  2.  there is some freedom taken in capitalising words arbitrarily. 
Starting a word with a capital letter is not a proper way of emphasing a 
word. A noun with a capital letter has a different meaning than the same 
noun without a capital letter, e.g., web VS Web. For emphasis, use 
italic, bold face, or underline;
  3.  masculine and feminine are both used randomly, to talk about a 
user, but even sometimes to talk about an agent in general. Either stick 
to a consistent gender, with a disclaimer that you use it for ease of 
reading to avoid "he/she" spelling, or simply use "he/she", or 
reformulate the sentences to make them gender-neutral, or stick to 
masculine only when you talk about Bob, and feminine only when you talk 
about Alice, being neutral in any other case;
  4.  I don't see where the use of Bob and Alice actually helps. A 
generic "user" or "user agent" would be fine, as far as I can see, since 
we don't rely on the notion so heavily;
  5.  W3C specs are normally written in American English dialect.

Detailed comments:
Intro:
"in one click" -> this suggests a specific way of implementing which 
requires a mouse.
"a URI whose sense" -> "whose" is normally for people
"foaf" -> it's an acronym, use "FOAF"
"such that the he is known" -> "such that he", I guess (modulo gender 
neutralisation)
"his Certification" -> why not hers?
"the the private" -> the private
"she used" -> why not he?

Sec.1.1:
"organisation" -> British English (BE)
"Key Store [...] by the Subject" -> it has just been said that the 
subject will be called Bob! In fact, Alice and Bob are very little used 
and could easily be removed (except only in examples)
"Service" -> there is a dot missing at the end of the sentence
"Guard [...] authorised [...] authorisation" -> BE
"WebID Claim [...] be thought of a set" -> thought of as a set
"Subject Alternate Names" is sometimes written in normal font, sometimes 
in Courrier-like font
"between the a Subject Alternative name" -> between the subject 
alternative name
The example does not use a valid lexical part for the hexBinary value 
(separators of octets not allowed).
"WebID Certificate [...] at http://bob.example/profile Such [...]" -> 
first, bob.example is not a valid domain name, second, there is a 
missing dot after the IRI.
"WebID Profile [...] RDF-XML" -> RDF/XML
"serialisations" -> BE

Sec.2.1:
"The WebID URL itself ..." -> isn't it the WebID IRI?

Sec.2.1.1:
"can sends a keyrequest" -> can send a key request

Sec.2.2:
"personalise [...] serialisation [...] serialisation [...] 
serialisations" -> BE

Sec.2.2.1:
"foaf" -> FOAF

Sec.2.2.1.1:
"his key" -> why not hers or its (we talk about the subject, not 
necessarily a person)?

Sec.2.2.1.2:
"""foaf:name
The name that is most commonly used to refer to the individual or agent."""

why the most commonly used? foaf:name is just a name, common or not, and 
there can be several foaf:names for an entity.

Sec.2.2.2:
Update the reference to Turtle to W3C RDF 1.1 Turtle. Turtle will 
certainly be standardised before the WebID spec is completed.

Sec.2.2.3:
"The style="word-wrap" ... right of the screen." -> who cares? This 
sentence is useless.
"he MAY publish" -> why not she?

Sec.2.3:
"if she is the" -> if he/it?
"then he can" -> can she?

Sec.3.1:
"summarised" -> BE
"The guard requests of the TLS agent that it make [sic] a Certificate 
Request to the client." -> weird sentence...
"is the transformed into an RDF graph [RDF-MT]" -> why the hell is RDF 
semantics referenced here?
"in Processing the WebID Profile ." -> "in processing the WebID profile."

Sec.3.2.1:
"a few web pages without having authenticated" -> without being 
authenticated(?)

Sec.3.2.3:
"[section 7.4.4]" -> [Section 7.4.4] (capital 'S')
"on CA's signing [...] the CA's they were" -> CAs signing ... the CAs ...
"As far as possible it is important ..." -> As much as possible
"advertised" -> BE

Sec.3.2.4:
"it's meaning can be had by" -> can be gotten / can be obtained
"RDF defining URIs [RFC3986]" -> add colon after ref.

Sec.3.2.4.2:
"the query engine MUST support the D-entailment regime fpr 
xsd:hexBinary" -> this implies that the query engine MUST support RDFS 
entailment, since D-entailment subsumes RDFS entailement. This is 
unlikely to be the case.
"normalisation [...] normalise [...] normalised" -> BE

Sec.3.2.4.3:
"personalise [...] personlise" -> BE
"those friends friends" -> those friends' friends
"It is even be possible" -> it is even possible

B. Acknowledgments:
The list of acknowledged people should be put inline, as it is the case 
in all W3C specs.

C. References:
[RDF-SPARQL-QUERY] -> consider reference to SPARQL 1.1 (not yet 
standardised but quite stable already)
Why is there a referencec to RDFa 1.0 and to RDFa 1.1, both for the 
formal syntaxes and the primers?
[TURTLE-TR] -> should use RDF 1.1 Turtle



Best,
-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
ISCOD / LSTI - Institut Henri Fayol
École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://zimmer.aprilfoolsreview.com/
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 16:53:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:37 UTC