W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ccpp2-comments@w3.org > June 2007

Editorial comments on CC/PP 2.0 Last Call

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:41:00 +0200
Message-ID: <466D50EC.40703@w3.org>
To: public-ccpp2-comments@w3.org
Cc: St├ęphane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>, team-ubiweb@w3.org
This mail contains only editorial comments. I have some more substantial
ones, and I will send them in separate mails one-by-one for an easier
reference.

None of the comments are essential, and it is all right with me if the
WG decides to ignore them. They are more as food for thoughts.

Ivan

1. In the abstract, bulleted item on using RDF classes: to avoid
misunderstandings it may be worth saying "RDF Schema aware processors"
rather than "schema-aware RDF processor". There is a possibility of
confusion between RDF Schema and XML schema (unfortunately...)

2. In the introduction, 3rd paragraph. The text refers to TURTLE as an
alternative serialization of RDF, which is fine. I wonder whether it
would be worth adding a reference to GRDDL, too. CC/PP strikes me as a
relatively simple vocabulary that could be written down as part of an
XHTML file with some sort of an agreed microformat or RDFa, and then
GRDDL-d to extract the RDF/XML information. (This is really just a
proposal, and no problem if the WG does not want to go down that road...)

3. Overall in the document: the examples as well as the figures use,
sometimes, the rdf:li idiom of RDF/XML, while sometimes they use the
rdf:_1, rdf:_2 properties. From RDF/XML point of view these are both
o.k. and mean the same thing. The document is consistent in the sense
that if a figure uses, say, rdf:li, then so does the corresponding code.
However, I still wonder whether it is wise to mix the two idioms in this
document. (Examples: Figure 3-2c uses the rdf:_1,... idiom, whereas
Figure 2-2b uses the rdf:li approach.)

This was discussed before and, as far as I remember, the decision to
keep both in the document to show that this can be done and both are
valid. If this is the reason, it may worth stating this explicitly
somewhere and refer to 2.15 section of the RDF/XML spec

4. Section 3.1 Components says: "However, CC/PP processors MUST be able
to handle profiles that do not contain component type indicators." In a
strict RDF and RDFS environment this statement is, in fact, redundant.
Indeed, the ccpp schema (correctly) indicates that the range of a
ccpp:component property is ccpp:Component, ie, when used, an RDFS
processor would automatically infer the type.

I understand that a CC/PP processor is not necessarily an RDFS
processor, too, so adding this as a requirement might be o.k. But making
it clear that this requirement is not completely out of the blue might
help the reader.



-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Monday, 11 June 2007 13:41:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:39 GMT