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

Updated the Syntax document

From: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:51:36 -0400
Message-ID: <453952F8.9070609@mit.edu>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org



I've brought the Syntax document up to "internally consistent" status:
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/

including going over Elias's comments below.

-Ben


A while ago, Elias wrote:
> Comments/Questions:
> 
> Section 2.3
> 
> "All [RDF URI references] are subject to xml:base  [XML-BASE]. Note that
> this means that in the absence of an xml:base attribute, the document
> containing the RDF statements is itself the base."
> 
> comes with an example:
> 
> <span xml:base="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/">
>     <link about="" rel="dc:creator"
> href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" />
>     <meta property="dc:title" content="Internet Applications" />
> </span>
> 
> that yields the following RDF statements:
> 
> <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>
>    dc:creator
>    <http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .
> <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>
>    dc:title
>    "Internet Applications" .
> 
> I'm a bit confused here, because my implementation yields:
> 
> <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>
>    dc:creator
>    <http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .
> _:span0
>    dc:title
>    "Internet Applications" .
> 
> Notice the blank node as opposed to the URI reference equivalent to the
> xml:base element. The spec says that the document is itself the base,
> however, meta and link subject resolution dictate that in the absence of
>  about and xml:id, one creates a new blank node. It doesn't say that I
> need to treat is an empty string and do URI resolution as in xml:base.
> What are your thoughts?

I think your implementation is correct. I am changing the syntax
document to have the META specify an @about.

> Section 3.3
> 
> In the example you use two prefixes not previously mentioned: bilio and
> taxo.
> 
> I used for biblio: http://example.org/biblio/0.1
> and for taxo: http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/

Good catch, fixed in syntax.

> Also, the triples output does not set the dc:title triples as XMLLiteral
>   literal types.

Good catch, fixed.

> Section 4.2.4
> 
> The XHTML example contains a typo, s/foaf:knowns/foaf:knows

Good catch, fixed.

> Section 5.1.1.1
> 
> I understand how the most relevant triple is the one containing XML
> mark-up, but just wanted to let you know that maybe you should add the
> dc:creator triple as well to avoid confusion.

I've removed the HTML for the other triple, to focus the discussion.

> Also, can you go in more details what is meant by exclusive
> canonicalization of the RDFa element's value.

Yeah, we need to clarify that, I've added a note.

> Section 5.1.2
> 
> I could not find the statement that dicated the datatype allowed for the
> datatype attribute (i.e. CURIEs, URI Ref, both). Also, It took a lot of
> reading to find that "plaintext" is a special value of datatype.

I've added an editors' note to clarify this.

> Section 5.2
> 
> _:a foaf:mbox mailto:daniel.brickley@bristol.ac.uk .
> _:b foaf:mbox mailto:libby.miller@bristol.ac.uk .
> _:a foaf:knows _:b .
> 
> mailto links, need <>.

fixed

> Section 6.1
> 
> In the yielded triples section, you are missing a couple of "." ending
> the statements.

fixed

> Section 6.2
> 
> The examples are missing the geo declaration. I used
> http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/

added it in the HTML.

> Also, some of the triples containing literals are missing
> ^^rdf:XMLLiteral. I'm not sure what you meant for geo:lat, geo:long,
> dc:title, foaf:name.

I made them all rdf:XMLLiteral for consistency right now. We will want
to fix the geo: ones, I'm sure.

> In general, I'd much rather use Turtle (which I did for my test suite)
> than using NTriples. The variations you made to NTriples pretty much
> make it Turtle. You might have picked NTriples because you have a
> normative reference to it, but that didn't stop SPARQL Query Language
> from using it. Just a thought.

Yes, I need to re-check the details of each :)


-Ben
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 22:51:47 GMT

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