Misha,
Thanks for the good comments. Pedantry is welcome at this stage.
I've done as you suggest on each point.
-John
=========================================
Disclose-Recipients: prohibited
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:26:20 +0000 (GMT)
From: Misha Wolf <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: 30 Jan revision of RFC#1 (unqualified DC)
To: John Kunze <[log in to unmask]>, Stu Weibel <[log in to unmask]>,
Carl Lagoze <[log in to unmask]>, meta2 <[log in to unmask]>
Hi folks. Long time no see!
My apologies for the prolonged silence; I dared to have a vacation and have
also acquired lots of additional commitments. On second thoughts, maybe
you're glad I've kept silent :-)
Some, belated, comments on RFC#1 follow. Though there are quite a few of
them, they could all be categorised as typos. What sort of comments would
you expect from a pedant?
First, a pre-comment (this isn't a typo): It's looking good, folks.
Now the actual comments:
1. Section 3: DC URL
Though the URL quoted here does lead somewhere useful, I think
the Web page pointed to does not satisfy the statement:
> The evolving reference description, including any defined qualifiers,
> resides at [1]: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core_elements
I suggest the above URL be replaced by
http://purl.org/metadata/dublin_core
2. Section 5: DC URL
The same comment applies also to section 5.
3. Section 2.5: Mention of RDF
This section mentions RDF and gives the expansion of the
abbreviation. Good!
What it does not do is give a reference, in the form of "[N]", to
where the reader might discover something about RDF.
4. Section 5: RDF
Section 5 needs a reference to RDF. Which URL do we use? It's a bit
awkward as RDF isn't yet a W3C Recommendation. I think that the best
we can do is quote the URL which yields the latest Working Draft,
namely:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-rdf-syntax
5. Section 3: Mention of RDF and XML
This section mentions XML and gives the expansion of the
abbreviation. Good!
> Although some environments, such as HTML, are not case-sensitive, it
> is recommended best practice always to adhere to the case conventions
> in the element names given below to avoid conflicts in the event that
> the metadata is subsequently extracted or converted to a case-
> sensitive environment, such as RDF/XML (Extensible Markup Language).
There are two problems, though:
(i) There is no reference, of the form "[N]", to where the reader
might discover something about XML.
(ii) The string "RDF/XML" is not explained and I'm not at all sure
that it can be explained in a manner suitable for an RFC. I
suggest the removal of the four characters "RDF/".
6. Section 5: XML
Section 5 needs a reference to XML. Which URL do we use? It's a bit
awkward as XML isn't yet a W3C Recommendation. I think that the best
we can do is quote the URL which yields the latest Proposed
Recommendation, namely:
http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-xml
7. Section 3.15: Missing "to"
> A rights management statement, an identifier that links to a rights
> management statement, or an identifier that links a service providing
> information about rights management for the resource.
I think "that links a service" should be "that links to a service".
^^
Over and out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Misha Wolf Email: [log in to unmask] 85 Fleet Street
Standards Manager Voice: +44 171 542 6722 London EC4P 4AJ
Reuters Limited Fax : +44 171 542 8314 UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
12th International Unicode Conference, 8-10 Apr 1998, Tokyo, www.unicode.org
7th World Wide Web Conference, 14-18 Apr 1998, Brisbane, www7.conf.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
Reuters Ltd.
|