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

Re: editorial comments on rdfa-syntax

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:55:14 -0400
Message-Id: <7F50E2B3-03A1-408A-8792-22D9666FB00D@mit.edu>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>


Ralph,

I've implemented all of the items below, except for :

> 14.  4.2 Establishing the predicate.  I expect we'll get complaints
>    for saying that one mailbox foaf:knows another mailbox.  Let's
>    let this slide for now but find an example that illustrates the
>    intended concept that also reflects good modelling practice.

We'll have to get back to that issue later...

-Ben

On Oct 27, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

> These are very late, for which I again apologize.  They're mostly
> editorial which (a) may make it easier for you and (b) certainly
> means you can ignore for today.
>
> Re "RDF/A Syntax"
> note 27 October 2005
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-rdfa-syntax
>
> 1. suggest adding $Id$ in the "This version" text so readers can
>    cite the timestamp in their comments and can know whether the
>    hardcopy they're reading matches the latest version in the Web.
>
> 2. Help readers understand the status of this document, specifically:
>
> 3. Change the style sheet to be the Editor's Draft style sheet, per
>    "Style for Group-internal Drafts" [1] as this is not yet a W3C  
> Note.
>
>    [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/03/28-editor-style.html
>
> 4. Add "produced on behalf of the Semantic Web Best Practices
>    and Deployment and HTML Working Groups" to the Status of
>    this Document section, with links to [2, 3, 4] respectively.
>
>    [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/
>    [4] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Group/
>
>    (this is slightly different wording than I suggested for the CURIE
>    document, as the respective WGs have seen earlier drafts of
>    this spec.)
>
> 5. Table of Contents has a typo in 5.3 (repeats the section number).
>
> 6. 1 Motivation, 3rd paragraph, strike "XML" in the first sentence or
>    substitute the word "markup".  We're not talking about XML proper
>    but rather about languages that use XML.
>
> 7. use example.com rather than mycom.com throughout.
>
> 8. Formatting; many of the N-triples blocks extend beyond the
>    right margin when printed.  I suggest line breaking all of the
>    long ones so the three components are each on their own line.
>    The same is true for some of the XML examples.  Don't be
>    afraid to wrap them by inserting a line break in front of an
>    attribute or immediately before a '>'.  (I like that latter trick a
>    lot in my markup).
>
> 9. (Editorial but perhaps more work than is warranted for now)
>    We're likely to get blackmarks for once again using an information
>    resource URI such as http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404 to
>    identify a person.  A more acceptable URI would be
>    http://www.blogger.com/profile/person#1109404
>
> 10. 2.4 Using CURIEs.  We can fill in the [REF] now, with the CURIE
>    editor's draft.
>
> 11.  3.1 General Approach, next-to-last XHTML example.  Add to the
>    paragraph preceeding this example ("Of course, the more natural
>    way to express...") the explicit "The following XHTML thus  
> generates
>    the same triples shown above."
>
> 12. 3.2 Qualifying document components, 4th paragraph, add the
>   clarifying "This syntax /+(omitting the about attribute to refer  
> to the
>   parent element)+/ only applies to the elements link and meta..."
>
> 13. 4.1 Processing.  This list of RDF/A attributes might be  
> interpreted
>    as the full list of what's in this RDF/A module.  That's nearly the
>    case; only datatype is missing.  As there is likely no meaning to
>    an element that has only a datatype attribute and none of the
>    attributes listed in the first sentence, I suggest adding a  
> sentence
>    to the end of this paragraph: "RDF/A also includes a datatype
>    attribute.  The presence of that attribute does not by itself
>    designate an [RDF/A element]."
>
> 14.  4.2 Establishing the predicate.  I expect we'll get complaints
>    for saying that one mailbox foaf:knows another mailbox.  Let's
>    let this slide for now but find an example that illustrates the
>    intended concept that also reflects good modelling practice.
>
> 15. 4.4 Establishing the object.  "If the predicate was set using
>    property then the object ... value will come from the content
>    attribute /+or element conent+/."
>
> 16. 5.3 Reification: (typo -- this also repeats the section number)
>   Here we're extending beyond N-Triples syntax.  This isn't even N3.
>   I think the better solution is to explicitly show all the triples,
>   rather than rely on the readers' intuition about what this quasi-N3
>   syntax might mean:
>
>    <> cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/> .
>    <> dc:creator "Mark Birbeck."
>    _:a rdf:type rdf:Statement .
>    _:a rdf:subject <> .
>    _:a rdf:predicate cc:license .
>    _:a rdf:object <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ 
> > .
>    _:a dc:creator "Ben Adida" .
>
> -Ralph
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 28 October 2005 02:55:22 GMT

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