Primer LCC review from Dave Beckett on 2003-01-14 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from January 2003) (original) (raw)

Review of http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-primer-20030117/

Summary: +1 to publish (only minor mostly wordings) - good work.

I've read Jan's comments and support most of them, so won't repeat.

Status: I assume "This is the current state of an ongoing work on the Primer." will go.

2.1

The bit I had to read several times I guess is just hard to write: [[ Specifically, the part that identifies the thing the statement is about (the Web page in this example) is called the subject. ] which has 6? clauses before it gets to the punchline, "the subject". Rewording here is tricky, i'll have a go: [[ Specifically, the part called the subject identifies the thing the statement is about (the Web page in this example).]

just a suggestion. Ditto for the others bits there.

2.2

P4 "a bit later on" - add link? add if a different section?

I also think the ex:index.html bit is rather odd. the qnames for predicates and classes is fine but maybe not for what might be called (example) user resources. I guess it isn't too important.

3.2

(near end) "is replaced by an element whose name is the class name." I think rather : "is replaced by an element whose name is the QName corresponding to the class URIref"

4

"names of the form rdf:n, where n is an integer" I've got burnt by that. Really: where n is a decimal integer greater than zero, with no leading zeros. (so rdf:-1, rdf:_0 and rdf:_01 for example are not allowed)

4.1 (yes - example1.org example2.org are not reserved. Only the three top example.{com,org,net}. I'm not sure about example.edu )

(last para) spelling: Committe => Committee

4.4 Unlike Jan, I'm happy to see rdf:value here still since it re-confirms that the usage in M&S is still ok :)

5 Example 17 might look better using the typed node form, since that is very typically used for RDF schemas and already introduced. I'd suggest adding an xml:base so you don't have to assume the URI of the document; it would be good if that was a new best practice I think.

6.1 "(although here we've written the Dublin Core element name in lower case)"

• all DC elements are written in lower case, that is how they should be written in XML (and RDF/XML)

Example 25: dc:identifierurn:issn:1082-9873 not <dc:identifier rdf:resource="urn:issn:1082-9873"/> ?

6.2

I'm wondering if using these wanderlust.com urls is a good idea. some of them don't work, such as http://wanderlust.com/2000/08/Corfu.jpg

Better to replace with wander.example.com ?

6.4

Very minor point; that screenshot is of the older W3C style.

-- Dave

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 17:09:45 UTC