Re: Review requested: [was: RE: Draft minutes of RDFCore telecon 20030130]

On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:24:47 -0500, Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org> wrote:
> Dave--
> 
> Not to be contradictory, but regarding the Syntax document, 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030117/
> , I've found what I believe are some problems (I found these when I 
> found some similar problems in reviewing the Primer, and tried to 
> compare the Primer to the other documents):
> 
> 1.  The minutes say that links should go to the shadow TR docs (and I 
> assume the above Syntax URL is an example of such a link).  Assuming 
> that is true,...

It is the correct link

> ... the "This Version" link, which is
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030317/, isn't 
> correct (note "0317" rather than "0117")
>
> 2.  Similarly, all the links to the "set of six" documents listed in the 
> SOTD are of this "0317" variety rather than "0117".

You are right.  In fact throughout the document there are references
to 20030317, which doesn't exist.  They all need changing.

(This would have been caught by a link check, later on likely)

> 3.  In the reference [RDF-CONCEPTS], the first link is to the 1215 TR, 
> not to shadow TR space, and the "this version" link and corresponding 
> text refers to the Primer, not to Concepts.
> 
> 4.  In the reference [RDF-PRIMER], both the first link and the "this 
> version" link (and corresponding text) is to one of these "0317" links 
> rather than "0117" (i.e., to shadow TR space)
> 
> 5.  Ditto in the reference [RDF-VOCABULARY].

Yes.

A global replace for s/20030317/20030117/ will fix this.


> I think Test Cases is OK.

Yes, it doesn't have that error.

Thanks for noticing this.

Dave

Received on Monday, 2 February 2004 09:35:11 UTC