W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2005

Re: Drafts of CURIE note, RDF/A spec, and Examples

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 12:13:08 -0400
Message-Id: <F6BB4E88-2176-4A0A-A88D-E13FE179B423@mit.edu>
Cc: "'public-rdf-in-xhtml task force'" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>


Mark,

Thanks for the great feedback. Some comments and questions on your  
comments below. Note that where I say "fixed", I've just committed a  
new version of the RDF/A spec that takes that comment into account.  
Otherwise, I've added an editor's note in bold in the document that  
points out the issue needing to be resolved. I'll work on that later,  
but I want to get everyone else's comments before I start changing  
the whole document.

Ralph, Steven, Jeremy, DanBri, (DanC?), please send comments whenever  
you can :)


>    * Section 4.1
>
>       * Now that we treat <link> and <meta> as special, then the  
> list of
>         what qualifies you as an [RDF/A element] is extended:
>
>         any element that has @about, @property, @rel, @rev, @href,
>         @content, on it, *or* one or more child elements of <link> or
>         <meta>;
>
>       * this obviously changes the notion of an [RDF/A element] only
>         being able to generate three triples;

Why are all children of <link> and <meta> considered RDF/A  
statements? Might they not be straight XHTML elements? Do you have an  
example in mind that could clear things up?

>    * Section 4.3.2
>
>       * worth saying that if there is no @about above the statement
>         then it is about the current document;

Good catch. Fixed.

>    * Section 4.3.3
>
>       * nice work! Might be worth just adding at the end how you only
>         need to change the <meta> to a <span> to get the alternative
>         set of triples again;

Indeed. Fixed.

>    * Section 4.4.1
>
>       * although we haven't discussed this yet on a call or the list,
>         myself and Steven played with the idea of automatically
>         generating an rdfs:label when an [RDF/A element] contains
>         text, even if there is no @property;

Not quite sure how this would work, but let's talk about it on  
Tuesday's call.

>    * Section 5.1.1
>
>       * now that <meta> and <link> are not the same as other elements,
>         we might need to favour examples that use ordinary elements;

Indeed, I did that for the rest of the document, but I left section 5  
as is. I haven't updated this yet, but let's keep this as one of our  
issues.

>       * we need to explain the @about on <head>, and that this will
>         probably be provided automatically by XHTML 2.

Yes, agreed, too. That isn't fixed yet.

>> And then the examples, which will need to be beefed up into a primer:
>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa

> Good stuff, again. One thing I notice is that you have CURIEs in  
> square
> brackets inside @rel, @rev and @property, but you don't generally  
> do this in
> the updated RDF/A draft. Personally, I prefer this,

[...]

> My preference would be to stick with the square brackets, and then  
> to make
> it up to a processor whether it wants to make these two equivalent:
>
>   <link rel="[xh:next]" href="..." />
>   <link rel="next" href="..." />

Yes, I thought through the RDF/A examples more carefully in terms of  
CURIE. I will update the RDF/A draft to your preference, but I note  
that I'm pretty worried about the rel="next" complication. But I'll  
make the documents consistent and then we'll discuss.

-Ben
Received on Sunday, 23 October 2005 16:13:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT