W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Review of RDF Vocab LCC

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:19:35 +0000
To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5410.1042204775@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

I reviewed
  $Revision: 1.3 $

  Several HTML things and links to fix.  
  Some clarifications but pretty much OK to go.


 Odd indenting near 6.1 & 6.2


P2, P3, ... - I think the style is to link/<cite> actual document
titles as well as [CITE].

P3, the sentence would read better if the full concepts title wasn't
used i.e from
  and Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concepts and Abstract Syntax
  , concepts and abstract syntax

P8 mentions "RDF's vocabulary description language, RDF Schema," once
too many times for me.  I think by now I've rememberede it.

P9 & P10 start with the same phrase again; seems rather redundant,
although it does reinforce the non-schema title.

P10 rdfs:domain & rdfs:range are <tt> and namespace-prefixed, before
this has been introduced.  I suggest since these just get regular
links, since in P8 they were linked as normal words.

P10 one bare Document vs eg:Document previously.

P10 any link to the more recent webarch docs here useful?

P11 DAML+OIL should have a ref,  Owl=>OWL

P12 "a collection of RDF resources".  What kind of collection?
It isn't an RDF collection.

P12 introduces namespace and rdfs.  This was already used in P10 and
earlier. Add Link to rdf namespace section of xml syntax wd.

P13 the last sentence is a bit hard to read in what is concatenated
depending on how you read "associated".  You should reword to
make it clear it is a URI-Reference made from
 (the URI-Reference associated with the prefix)
   concatenated with
 (the suffix)

P14 Is it worth pointing out any benefits or costs that the WG or
editors have already considered on changing the namespace URI so that
it is clear some of these have been discussed.

Section 2 Classes

P2 in the middle of the example it says:
  [[ It is possible for these classes to have exactly the same
  instances, yet to have different properties.]]
Took me a while to work out it meant the classes might have different
properties, not that the (same instances) could have different

P3 Zermelo-Fraenkel - needs a reference to somewhere

P4 "a class called rdfs:Class" isn't that "a class with the URI-ref
rdfs:Class" or would named be better?

2.1 header isn't in right format; is a <p> not a <h2> etc.

Add a link to concepts defns of resource?


I've just noticed that only some of the rdfs:... words are links.
Here there are none, but 2.1 has one linked and later sections vary
too.  This should be made consistent.

'plain literal' and 'typed literals' need linking to concepts dfns
too especially since it says that this doc doesn't define plain
literals.  No mention of language.

one bare rdfs:Datatype (not <tt>).  Being both an instance and
subclass of rdfs:Class seems a special case, is this worth expanding

Section 3 Properties

Link & <cite> the concepts title


P3 Bare rdfs:Class (not <tt>)

P4 Bare rdfs:range

section title is not <h2>etc. form

P4 Bare rdf:Property, rdfs:Class

P5 Bare rdfs:domain

P7 bare rdfs:Class

section title is not <h2>etc form


P1 bare rdf:Property

P5 bare rdfs:Class


P1 bare rdf:Property
P5 bare rdfs:subPropertyOf

P5 bare rdfs:label

Section 4 

P2 starts off with the old name "RDF schema"

Section 5

Better say if this section is informative (otherwise is normative)


sentence 2 needs a ',' after "identical".

bare rdf:Seq, rdf:bag, rdf:Alt.  could be links to next sections too.

P3 is rather cute but it could be better put with the statement
first: "A property of an RDF container is not necessarily a property
of all of the members of the container".

I'm not sure about the "human reader" phrasing.  Is this like an
rdfs:comment, only for people to use?

P2 you could point to the example of an parseType collection in the
syntax wd, or to the grammar rule that defines it.


the "class of RDF Lists"?  Isn't this the class of RDF Collections?

If you want to just define lists, I would expect to see some
explanation in 5.2 that an RDF List is an RDF Collection, or that the
only currently defined RDF Collection is an RDF List.


P5 the link over rdf:List goes too far and covers "rdf:List. The"


I would avoid sublist since that begs the question of how the two
lists relate.  How about:
   "used to indicate a list that contains the second and onwards (if
   any) items of the current list"

you could even mention the lisp terms (car cdr), but I can never
rememeber which ones are which.


"states that L is an instance of rdf:List that has one element which
should be indicated by its rdf:first"

It doesn't quite say that, it just tells you if there are 2 or more
items in L.  How about something like:

"states that the L is a list with at most one item.  The first item
may be present if L has an rdf:first property."

[terminology throughout 5. - item or elements of list?  I'd go with


I'm not sure I can say anything useful about reification but I'll
have a go.

Didn't we decide these were statings?  Does that need mentioning here?

links to concepts for 'triple' and 'predicate of an RDF statement'

[is statement==triple ?]

Section 5.4 Utility Properties


P2 bare rdf:value

P3 HTML:  r<code>df:value</code> should be  <code>rdf:value</code> 

Section 6 
normative lists?  Are these derived from the RDFS RDF/XML doc?  In
case of error...?

Need links to the definining sections

The comment at the bottom of 6.2 needs links to the precise defn of
rdf:_n section, earlier and to rdf:nil.

Appendix A

Note that it is intended to be used at the RDF schema namespace URI
eventually?  (whatever the URI is)

I checked the 
and it parses OK as RDF/XML
Received on Friday, 10 January 2003 08:20:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:19 UTC