Issues discovered in original paper

[stain]

As I adapted the original paper for this wiki, I found some issues that should be raised with the original authors:

• Several of the references don't have clickable DOIs.
• Throughout this document, the keywords "must", “should”, "recommended", etc are used here interpreted as described by the W3C[7] - the link is correct (RFC2119 but it's described by IETF, not W3C. This is commonly referred to as RFC2119 with the standard text:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL
   NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED",  "MAY", and
  "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in
  

  RFC 2119.

• The RFC2119 keywords MUST always be written in UPPER CASE inline the text when they are meant to be interpreted according to RFC2119 - I think only Table 1 does this - is that the intention?
• Table 1: Cool URIs don’t change should be a reference, not a footnote. It should be a prime reference for this paper and should also be mentioned also under Rule 4.
• Rule 1 has a link ro:derives_from which gives 404.
• Rule 1 forgets to mention prov:wasDerivedFrom or prov:alternateOf.
• Rule 3 and Rule 4 are very difficult to read because of various internal Fix 1, Table S3 and Box 2 references. (See also Add hyperlinks to Rule 3/4 #2 )
  In Rule 5 there is a confusing reference to Force 11 Data Citation Principles and ARK identifier scheme, as I could not see either of them describe metadata landing pages.
• Rule 4 needs to be shortened, and/or split into 2-3 paragraphs.
• In Rule 7 "UniProt:P12345.3  http://www.uniprot.org/uniprot/P12345.3." I assume an arrow should be in place of the "Unknown character" unicode symbol. Hyperlink colours are inconsistent. (This may be a LibreOffice Writer issues)
• In Rule 9, the "Health Care and Life Sciences Interest Group" hyperlink for [16] goes to an outdated draft - it should go to latest version (as it does in the line below). Citation [16] in references must also be updated.
• Table 3 have inconsistent hyperlinks (some are missing http://www). Also I would expect all uniprot identifiers like Q57339 to be hyperlinks so I can try the example.
• Table S5 should be called Table S6
• Adapted from Linked Open Data Institute Recommendations [LODI] is missing citation - is this http://lov.okfn.org/Recommendations_Vocabulary_Design.pdf? It's not called "Linked Open Data Institute".
• In Table S2, "See also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII" is lacking http://. It is inconsistent if URLs are clickable or not.
• In Table S2, "URI" is sorted as if it was "IRI". There's a second (emptier). entry for "URI" further down. IRIs are not mentioned. It should be made even clearer that the paper redefines URI to be distinct from its subset URL - which is a bit odd.
• In Table S2, Citation for "content drift" [19] is wrong - this should be http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115253#s1title
• Table S2 has inconsistent casing in the first column
• In Table S2, "CURIE prefix" description is a bullet point list, but it lacks bullets and/or punctuation/capital letters
• In Table S2, it is unclear if XREF is a shortening for "cross reference" or is a special form of cross reference.
• In Table S2 "URI" entry, "Fig1a" and "Fig 1b-1e" is referenced, although no such figure exist in the text -- do you mean particular columns (A-C) or rows (1-5) in Figure 1?
• In Table S5 the secondary bullet points are not indented (thus may be a rendering issue in LibreOffice Writer)