CURIE spec. editorial errors

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

CURIE spec. editorial errors

Daniel Barclay
CURIE spec. editorial errors

The document currently at
( contains several editorial

* Section 1 says:

     Moreover, in this example, we want the names within that scope to
     a URI that will reveal the meaning of that ISBN.

   (Something is missing (perhaps "to map").)

* Section 1 says

     ... the syntax of QNames is overly-restrictive ..

   The hyphen isn't needed in that case (because "overly" is an

* Section 1 says:

     CURIEs expand to any IRI.  QNames are treated as value pairs, but
     even if those pairs are combined into a string, only a subset of
     IRIs can be represented.

   Something is really unclear in that first sentence.  It does not
   convey the its apparent intended meaning because of its imprecision.
   (The set of all CURIEs does _not_ expand to any single IRI.)

   The paragraph should probably first be written in terms of singular
   items, e.g.: "A CURIE expands to an IRI.  A QName is treated as a
   value pair ..."  (Obviously, second, the part about being able to
   represent any IRI needs to be re-added somehow.)

* Section 2.2 says:

     ... "URI-references, IRI-references" ..

   Those hyphens are extraneous.

* Section 3 says:

     The following definition makes the set of CURIEs a syntactic
     superset of the set of QNames.  It is comprised of two
     components, a prefix and a reference. ...

       safe_curie  :=   '[' curie ']'

       curie       :=   [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference

       prefix      :=   NCName

       reference   :=   irelative-ref (as defined in IRI)

   First, the "is comprised of" is backwards.  (A whole comprises its
   parts (or is _composed_ of them); it is not "comprised of" its

   Second, it is not the definition that comprises two components.
   (The first and second sentences are not coordinated right--as
   things are written, the "it" refers to "the following definition,"
   not to "a CURIE" or "the curie production.")

* Section 3 says:

     Such reserved values MUST translate into an IRI, just as with any
     other CURIE.

   That wording doesn't say what it (apparently) means.  It should say
   something like:

     Such a reserved value MUST translate into an IRI, just as with any
     other CURIE.

* Section 3 says:

     Host languages MAY define additional constraints on these syntax
     rules when CURIES are used ...

   (The "s" is capitalized.)

* Section 4.1 says:

     The [SPARQL] language provides ...

   Shouldn't that really be something like the following?

     The SPARQL language [SPARQL] provides ...

   (That is, the bracketed text represents a footnote reference, so
   the sentence should be readable without that text, right?  So
   writing "The [SPARQL] language provides ..." reads as "The
   language provides ...," which certainly isn't the intent.

   For example, see the SPARQL spec's section 1.2.2

     This document uses the Turtle [TURTLE] data format to ...

(_If_ W3C specifications are to be in American English:  The phrases
quoted with single quotes should use double quotes.)

(Plain text sometimes corrupted to HTML "courtesy" of Microsoft Exchange.) [F]