Comments on WD-rdf-schema-19981030

Hello editors,

I recently read [1] and have a few minor comments I hope
you will find useful. I find the spec very readable, although
I stopped after Section 7.

1) Since schemas are supposed to receive new URIs when they
   change, I think the example in section should
   not refer to "". W3C
   uses undated URIs to refer to the "latest version" of
   a document. Thus, to ensure that this example refers
   to the correct schema, I think each reference to WD-rdf-schema
   should refer to a dated version of the schema. Also, 
   section 1.2.1, paragraph 2 should emphasize the social
   of maintaining an existing schema.

2) In the same example, the last Description should have the
   resource refer to the entire schema, not just "#Class".

3) The example given in Section 3, third paragraph (of "author"
   and "Book") is not very convincing because there are many
   classes of objects besides Books that may have authors. I think
   a more precise, telling example would convey the point better.

4) Section 7.C. When printed, the example is too wide.

5) Minor typographical conventions:
   1) web -> Web
   2) "e.g." should be followed by a comma
   3) Choose one between sub-class and subclass (I like subclass).
   4) I think W3C prefers American spellings.
   5) Please change "NOTE" to "W3C NOTE" in 4.2, paragraph 3.
   6) Please change "W3C activity" to "W3C Activity" in 4.1.2
   7) "human readable" -> "human-readable"

 - Ian   


Ian Jacobs ( 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814

Received on Sunday, 13 December 1998 19:52:14 UTC