- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:16:41 -0600
- To: <spec-comments@prismstandard.org>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
notes on PRISM: Publishing Requirements for Industry Standard Metadata "Public Last Call" for Version 1.0 March 5, 2001 http://www.prismstandard.org/only/lastcalldraft.pdf as I read it. Overall, good stuff! My comments are all nits... Sorry if these notes are too cryptic... I hope to elaborate eventually, but I figure better send these now than file them away and risk not sending them at all... * rights expression separate from enforcement: good choice. (cf recent W3C rights management workshop@@) * definitions out of context: poor editorial technique (cf my comments on Xlink@@) * "one or more properties" -- in RDF, a property is a label on an arc, not the arc itself. so this wording isn't consistent with RDF. Not critical, but if using "one or more statements" isn't too awkward, consider it. * 2.1 scenario: good editorial technique. * <dc:creator>Abraham Lincoln</dc:creator> beware: persons versus names of persons also: <prism:rightsAgent>Phantasy Photos, Philadelphia</prism:rightsAgent> also: [[ Many elements, such as dc:subject, may take a string as a value, or may use a URI for identifying an element in a controlled vocabulary of subject description codes. The URI may be a simple reference, or may provide an inline description of the controlled vocabulary term. Implementations MUST be capable of handling all three of those cases reliably. ]] * <dc:coverage rdf:resource="iso3166-2:gr" /> er... the iso3166-2 URI scheme is new to me; are you registering it? * <dc:identifier rdf:resource="wanderlust:2357845" /> whoa! don't give folks the impression they can create their own URI schemes just like that. * 4.3 PRISM MIME Type The Internet Media Type (aka MIME type) for PRISM descriptions is 6 "application/prism+rdf+xml". er... isn't the convention */xml+*? I should double-check the recent RFC... * xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.0/basic/" I recommend "...basic#" rather than "...basic/", because "...basic/" necessarily denotes an HTTP resource, i.e. a sort of generic document (i.e. a thing that responds to GET requests), but RDF properties and classes might turn out to be disjoint from HTTP resources. "...basic#foo" isn't constrained the way "...basic/foo" is. (@@does this make any sense? Ask TimBL about it if you get a chance.) * 4.8.2 Constraint 2: rdf:aboutEachPrefix disallowed probably wise. * "XML DTDs cannot describe such a flexible content model, so no DTD is provided in this specification 11 ." I bet you can describe it with an XML Schema; I've got some stuff you might want to start from. Ah... you're already on to this: "11 A validation tool based on XML Schemas is being developed.". * <dc:subject rdf:resource="NAICS:21"/> more unregistered URI schemes? * bird's-eye using a single-quote in a name is likely to be problematic. Don't go there. I hope to provide more details about these comments and give the PRISM spec another, closer, review. But that's what I found in the first reading. I really like the liberal use of scenarios and examples; terms take on meaning by use, and using the terms in examples in the spec is a good way to get the use of the terms off the ground. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2001 09:45:52 UTC