W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > March 2001

PRISM March 5, 2001 Last Call Draft Comments

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 14:38:14 +0000
To: spec-comments <spec-comments@prismstandard.org>
Cc: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6811.984580694@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

Overall, I like it; I've a load of DC RDF/XML nits - writing an
RDF/XML parser, DC and RSS 1.0 applications really makes me notice

Looks like the DC/XML draft I edit would be a conformant profile of
PRISM - http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2000/11/dcmes-xml/


page 10 section 2.2
  I don't like the new URI scheme wanderlust: in dc:identifier -
  stick with http URIs that are cheap to create and can potentially
  be fetched.  Or use some other well known thing - DOI, URN (no
  arguments over support for these, please!)

page 11 footnote 2
  'it istrated' => 'it is treated'

page 13 section 2.4
  introduces iso3166-2: scheme.  Wouldn't this be better done as a
  prism controlled vocabulary?  Downside is that short URIs turn into
  long ones since you can't use namespaces in attribute values.

  iso3166-2: is just as much as PRISM-only vocabulary as any
  namespaced one but the former cannot have a (say RDF) schema
  written for it that external systems could understand.

page 16 section 2.7.1

  dc namespace URI is wrong here and in many following examples
  - a must fix.

page 16 section 2.7.2
  although tempting for authors, maybe admonish them not to try to
  include &copy; in the <prism:copyright> field - if they really want
  that, they must use the &#123; form.  I see this in other RDF apps,
  but this breaks most XML parsers.  I'm confident 123 is the wrong
  number, but I'll carry on reading rather than look it up now.

page 19 section 2.7.4 last example
  xml:base with RDF is possibly going to work, but not all XML
  parsers support this.  This is either an implementation note or
  maybe you might alter the suggested style to specify full URIs -
  rather a pain.

  Note that although a sequence of <dc:creator> elements in an
  RDF/XML file implicitly defines a sequence (in the XML world), RDF
  parsers have no obligation to preserve that ordering, unlike in an
  rdf:Seq.  So the PRISM RDF profile requires that the ordering be

  "the RDF parseType attribute" =>
  "the <tt>rdf:parseType</tt> attribute"

  and "value of 'Literal'" => "value of '<tt>Literal</tt>'"

Section 5
  througout there are <tt>dc:blah</tt> and normal dc:blah -
  need consistency

  Example could have newlines after elements to aid readability

  Dc:format => dc:format

  Example closing element <dc:rights> => </dc:rights>

  ahah, copyright sign appears.  See above

    extra '</' before </prism:expirationTime>
    parseType="resource" => parseType="Resource"


other things

  xml:lang I notice appearing once in a description, is that assumed
  as part of general XML support?
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 09:38:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:29 UTC