The 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
draft-yevstifeyev-disclosure-relation-02

1. The purpose of the draft is defining a the semantics of a new link relationship type.  This is done in section 2. But the four lines of text that should serve this purpose rather confuse me:

> 2. 'disclosure' Link Relation Type
> 
>    Whenever the 'disclosure' relation is defined, the target IRI MUST
>    either

What does precisely mean "Whenever the disclosure relation is defined"?
It is defined in this document.  The sentence should rather state something like "Whenever the relation type attribute is used with value 'disclosure'".

>    (1) designate a list of patent disclosures, or
> 
>    (2) refer to a particular patent disclosure made with respect to the
>        material being referenced by context IRI.

Why does (1) designate and (2) refer to?  Why is there a difference?
Where is the difference explained?  What are the semantics of "designating a list of patent disclosures".

2. In the IANA Consideration section please be explicit that the registry to be extended is the Link Relation Type registry. 

3. Abstract: 
>    This document specifies the 'disclosure' Link Relation Type.  It
>    designates a list of patent disclosures or a particular patent
>    disclosure itself made with respect to material for which such
>    relation type is specified.

I had to read this two times until I could parse the second sentence correctly.  Less cryptic wording would be appreciated, particularly

in the abstract that should readers allow to quickly get an idea of the content.

I would suggest removing "itself" from the abstract, but I'm not a native speaker. 

The first sentence says "this document specifies the new type".
The last line says "for which the type is specified".  This is confusing.
In both cases the "type" is "specified" but with different meanings.
In the first case it is indeed the specification of the type.
In the second case the type is assigned to (not specified for) "material".
Suggestion: replace "specified" in last line.


4. Section 1 (Introduction), first sentence: see comments on abstract


5.  Section 1 (Introduction), second paragraph, line 1:
"Active use of 'disclosure' relation type has been identified."
  - What is "active use" compared to just "use"?
  - Why "identified"? What is "identification of use"?
    You may want to replace "identified" by "observed" or something similar.


6.  Section 1 (Introduction), line 4:
Suggestion: "defines" -> "mandates"


7.  Section 1 (Introduction), last line:
"separate" -> "multiple"


8. Section 3 (examples), last example:
This example uses potentially real domain names:
patent.gov, ipr.su, ftp.legal.va.  They should be replaced with domain names reserved for examples such as example.com, example.net, and example.org, see RFC 2606.

I support the discusses, in particular the concern about pure patents vs. other general purpose IPR. The latter is the one that we use for IETF, for instance.

This seems almost harmless. (It'd be totally harmless if it didn't
add to the IPR industry in a very, very minor way;-)  The writeup
says that W3C feedback will be sought during IETF LC - did that
happen and were they (as the ostensbile users of this) ok with it?

Examples like patent.gov seem like a bad idea as do "almost"
realistic patent numbers.  Suggest either using example.org style
stuff or else URIs for real but expired patents.

There were a bunch of IETF LC mails on this (mostly suggested nits
from Julian Reschke) that looked like they'd be worth fixing. (And
the author appeared to agree too.)