W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > May 2006

Re: RDFa Primer WD#2 Ready - Addressing Gary's Comments from WD#1

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:41:53 -0400
Message-Id: <D4F07756-9DFB-4B4A-98B0-684DBC7CED51@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-rdf-in-xhtml task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
To: "Gary Ng" <Gary.Ng@cerebra.com>


Gary,

Thanks for these comments. I've made changes as you suggested, with  
comments below. The new version is checked in at the same URL:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-04-24-rdfa-primer

I'll be doing the pubrules check later today to try to publish this  
inside the moratorium deadline tomorrow :) Thanks again for sending  
this in today!

-Ben


> Section 2 and 2.1
>
>   Suggestion: Reread and tidy up English grammar.

I reviewed this and fixed the language a bit.

> Section 2.2
>
>   Suspect missing metadata: No triple for Jo speaking at the event.
> There is no triple linking Jo the person to the anonymous "Vevent".

I could make Jo an attendee here, but nothing in the iCal schema lets  
me define a speaker... certainly it can be done with another  
vocabulary, but it seems too early in the Primer to add another  
vocabulary. Let me know if you feel strongly otherwise.

> Section 2.3
>
>   Confusion: " Jo then sets up her vCard ... the vCard schema does not
> require declaring a vCard type - i.e. there will be no role attribute
> this time ..."  --  The causal relationship between the two sentences
> isn't at all obvious to the reader. Since the use of "role" was simply
> called into existence in 2.2 without any explanation why it was used,
> compare to say any other possibilities. Is the difference being  
> that you
> don't want the instance of Vevent to be explicitly identifiable
> (anonymous)? Otherwise "about" would be a more appropriate thing to  
> use?

Well, the only difference is in the schemas that are published for  
this stuff, and they don't have an explicit Vcard datatype, which is  
unfortunate. I've tried to make the language clearer around this issue.

>   English quibble: "Simple enough!, Jo realizes, as she adds her first
> vCard fields: name, title, organization and email."  --  It reads like
> this sentence is not finished.

fixed.

> Section 2.6
>
>   I recommend a swap between 2.5 and 2.6. Showing what the Metadata
> looks like to consolidate in the reader's mind what all those mark up
> means, before considering the case where Jo does not have control over
> her markup and requires a slight modification to the mark up. It  
> hammers
> in the fact that the metadata the reader has just seen previously does
> not change at all by modifying the location of the namespace
> declarations.

Point taken, but for now, we're going to stick with the current  
ordering of things, because we want section 2 to focus on HTML, and  
section 3 to be more RDF oriented.

> Section 3
>
> Section 3.1
>
>   While in Section 2 there was a good reason for wanting to mark up  
> the
> html: "...readers of her blog might be able to add her talk  
> directly to
> their calendar.". It seems by comparison the original example in  
> Section
> 3, while it contains enough material to cover a variety of RDF/A
> features, lacks some weight with respect to "Why would I want to mark
> that up?".
>
>   I guess I am focusing on the sentence: "Shutr may benefit from using
> RDF to express this rich metadata." - my question is: what benefits? I
> cannot think of one right now but if we could find some it will engage
> the reader even more to read on. For example: the benefit is to afford
> more accurate retrieval for photos by specific photographers, or  
> else...

Okay, I'll add this to our list of issues for the next WD. We need to  
motivate section 3 a bit more clearly.

> Section 3.2
>
>   Awkward sentence (?): "One might wonder, given the above example, if
> the span element is required to attach RDF properties to rendered
> content. In fact, it is not: the property attribute can be used on any
> XHTML element. For example, if the original HTML did not include the
> explicit words "Photo Album #12345":"
>
>   Suggestion: It is probably clearer to say that one can directly mark
> up the entire content of a tag such as <h1> using "property". Use  
> "span"
> if there are something in that element you want to include/exclude.

Fixed.

> Section 4:
>
> Section 4.3
>
>   Suggestion: Here is a good place to introduce the similarities and
> differences between span/anchor and meta/link without much effort.
> Inserted my editing suggestion between [] below:
>
>   "One immediately wonders whether the redundancy between the about  
> and
> id attributes can be simplified. Partly for this purpose, RDFa  
> includes
> elements link and meta, [which is similar in function to anchor and
> span, but] behave in a special way: they only apply to their immediate
> parent element, even if an ancestor element bears an alternate about
> attribute."

Edited accordingly.


-Ben
Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 21:42:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:02 GMT