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

Re: Comments on RDF/A spec

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:15:46 -0400
Message-Id: <B5DEDA0A-D3ED-4AB9-9742-46C9AFFAA293@mit.edu>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Jeremy,

Thanks for the comments! Answers below, in particular, please check  
out my questions to comments 6 and 7... I'm not sure I completely  
understand the issues you raised.

> Looks very good. Fixes the inheritance problems of last year's  
> version.
> Although, with this certain idioms might become a bit wordy (e.g.  
> an object consisting
> of a bnode with properties hanging off it, now is best marked up as  
> explicit triples, one after the other, with no nesting). No change  
> suggested.

Yes, indeed, could be a bit wordy. I'm trying to partially address  
that with predicate inheritance under specific circumstances:

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current- 
issues#predicate-inheritance

> At least one issue not on list:
> - language tags in XML Literals, see comment 7 below.
>
> 1) encoding

should be fixed with the new document:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax

> 2) section 2.2 para before 2.2.1
>
> Suggest
> s/an [RDF URI /a subject [RDF URI/

yes, fixed.

> 3) end section 4.2
>
> suggest duplicating example with both rel and rev attributes

done.

> 4) 4.3.3
> The behaviour of the id attribute in the context statement of the  
> meta or link needs to be made explicit here. Such behaviour does  
> not apply when the context statement is itself a meta or link.

yes, I've marked this, I need to figure out how to word carefully.

> 5) 5.1.2.1
> Minor comment: it is possible to use rdf:XMLLiteral and content  
> attribute. However an exmaple is hard to construct, more later,  
> possibly much later.

okay, I'll wait for your example to do something here, but will mark  
an issue.

> 6) Typed literals
> The document seems to only allow typed literals with content attribute
> I think we can also permit typed literals with lexical form given  
> by the concatenation of the text() descendents of the element.

can you say a bit more about this? Is this a similar issue to #5 above?

> 7) lang tag in XML Literals 5.1.2.1, 4.4.1
> The  behaviour for literal objects, no content attribute, and no  
> datatype attribute constructs an rdf:XMLLiteral and looses any lang  
> tag from the context. I suggest this is a mistake, and should be  
> fixed by inserting a span or div as appropriate.

can you send an example

> 8) plain literals from text() nodes
> There is no method for generating plain literals from the children  
> text() nodes.
> Plain literals can only be generated using the @content attribute.
> This may have been desirable behaviour. No change suggested.

We may want to allow for concatenation of text() nodes... I'll add  
that as an issue to

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current- 
issues#plain-literals

-Ben
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 20:15:45 GMT

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