W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2004

Reviewing RDF concepts, proto-REC version

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2004 18:01:19 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Eric Miller <em@w3.org>
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

modified: 06 February 2004 21:19:31
size: 76.29 KB (78124 bytes)
     <meta name="rcsid" content="
     $Id: Overview.html,v 1.70 2004/02/06 21:19:30 sandro Exp $" />

Focusing on the SoD and Referenbces sections.


This is one document in a set of six (Primer, Concepts, Syntax, Semantics, 
Vocabulary, and Test Cases) intended to jointly replace the original 
Resource Description Framework specifications, RDF Model and Syntax (1999 
Recommendation) and RDF Schema (2000 Candidate Recommendation). It has been 
developed by the RDF Core Working Group as part of the W3C Semantic Web 
Activity (Activity Statement, Group Charter) for publication on 10 February 

The phrase "set of six" is hyperlinked to section 1 of the same document 
(but different 
I'm not sure what is the relevance of this link.

All other links in SoD seems OK to me.


Normative references:

I note that the URI link for RDF semantics is different from that given in 
the SoD link, though they seem to reference the same proto-REC document.


Similar comment as for [RDF-SEMANTICS].

Other normative reference links seem OK, and match the dates given.


Informative references:

Similar discrepancy w.r.t. SoD as noted above for [RDF-SEMANTICS]

I think it would be appropriate to update this, now that it's a full REC.


Maybe update to: XML Information Set (Second Edition), to be consistent 
with XML and XML Namespace 1.1 RECs?

As OWL is going to full REC at the same time as RDF, would it be 
appropriate to reference the forthcoming full REC?

It seems rather odd to be referencing the current- and latest- versions of 
a document from a document that is superseding that cited.  I gues, at this 
stage, it should be left as it is.

Cites "latest version of XHTML 1", but I think that should be "latest 
version of XHTML 1.0"

The link references an XML document rather than a human readable 
document.  Suggest it should be linked to:


That's my 2 eyeball's worth!


Graham Klyne
For email:
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2004 13:01:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:27 UTC