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

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:11:08 +0200
Cc: "public-webid@w3.org" <public-webid@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9D343440-0B58-4023-B556-494F838A29E7@bblfish.net>
To: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr>
Thanks a lot Antoine. Stéphane told me over skype, he'd add those in to the spec today.

On 23 Oct 2012, at 18:53, Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@emse.fr> wrote:

> 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;
ok

> 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;

the last one makes sense

> 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;

I'd have to look at it, but I thought that having names made the text lighter. That is it avoid having to use the word Agent all the time, which becomes grating. But perhaps you have an example where we overdid it?

> 5.  W3C specs are normally written in American English dialect.

ah. ok.

> 
> 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.

yes, which is why I added the algorithm in the next section. I don't think we can really add that it is unlikely to be the case in a spec...

> "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

that just came out :-)

should we also update to latest RDFa?

Henry

> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 

Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/



Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 04:11:50 UTC

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