W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Comments on RDFa Syntax version 1.8 2007/04/06 16:36:34

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 19:21:44 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D298520108DAEC@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Fabien Gandon" <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Fabien,

>I hope to get time to update the RDFa2RDFXML transformation [2] to
>reflect latest changes.

What a coincidence! I got an action on exactly this one -
we may want to jointly do that?

This also goes along with setting up an official GRDDL profile for RDFa.

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>Fabien Gandon
>Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 6:29 PM
>To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
>Subject: Comments on RDFa Syntax version 1.8 2007/04/06 16:36:34
>
>
>Hello,
>
>To catch up with the RDFa work I reviewed the draft "RDFa Syntax: A
>collection of attributes for layering RDF on XML languages" [1] in its
>version 1.8 2007/04/06 16:36:34.
>I hope to get time to update the RDFa2RDFXML transformation [2] to
>reflect latest changes.
>
>Below are some comments,
>
>Cheers,
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/
>[2] http://www-sop.inria.fr/acacia/soft/sweetwiki.html
>
>
>Comment #1 - xml:base and produced triples
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Section 2.3 "Using xml:base" explains how to handle the about=""
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id0x02576380
>
>And the produced triples in the examples show the right URL 
>for the document
><http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>   dc:creator
><http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404>
>
>However in the other examples the code uses the "< >" notation which I
>find confusing since they represent extracted triples and thus they
>should refer to the document they were extracted from instead 
>of using a
>self-reference which is no longer correct if the triple is no longer in
>its source document (see extracted triples in sections 2.2.1, 2.4, 3.4,
>4.2.5, 4.3.3, 5.1.1, 5.3, 6.2). I think the URL of the document or its
>base should always be explicit in the extracted triples 
>especially since
>this self-reference could be used to add metadata to extracted 
>triples e.g.:
>
><photo1.jpg> dc:creator <http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .
><http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> foaf:img <photo1.jpg> .
><photo1.jpg> dc:title "Portrait of Mark" .
><http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/> cc:license
><http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/nc-nd/3.0/> .
>< > dc:date "2007/04/12/"^^xsd:Date .
>
>
>Comment #2 - namespace declaration
>-------------------------------------------------------
>The example in section 3.3 "Relating document components" declares only
>the dc namespace.
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id0x023295f8
>In my opinion in this example, either you declare no namespaces at all
>or you declare all the namespaces you use: taxo, rdf, biblio.
>
>Moreover I think section 2.4 "Using CURIEs" should mention how 
>the CURIE
>prefixes are resolved to namespaces.
>
>
>Comment #3 - Section 4.4 Establishing the subject
>-------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id0x0255ad98
>You wrote " At a high level, the subject of a statement is 
>determined by
>the about attribute, either on the element or on the closest parent of
>that element. Two exceptions to that rule exist. First, if a closer
>parent element includes a rel or rev attribute with no href, then the
>subject is the CURIE/URI that corresponds to that parent element (as
>described previously in object resolution.) Second, if the [RDFa
>element] under consideration is a META or LINK without an about, then
>the subject is the immediate parent element's CURIE/URI equivalent."
>
>I found the use of "closet parent", "closer parent" and "immediate
>parent" confusing I think the terminology of XPath axes "ancestor",
>"parent", "child", "descendant", etc. ( http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#axes
>) is better and should be used in all the document as you did for
>instance in section 4.4.2 "Inheriting the about attribute"
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id0x0231be58
>
>
>Comment #4 - Section 4.4.3 rel and rev attributes in ancestor elements
>-------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id0x02547470
>
>You wrote "During the ancestor element traversal, one may encounter an
>element with a rel or rev attribute without a corresponding href
>attribute. As described in object resolution, this situation defines a
>new subject for all its children elements, in particular the currently
>considered [RDFa element]. Specifically, the CURIE/URI associated with
>this ancestor element becomes the subject."
>
>So if I understand this well a node may become a subject when 
>there is a
>rel on it but couldn't we have the same case when it contains a link
>element  ? I.e. could we have a case that looks like the following one
>(I may have mixed up the syntax)
>
>The following example:
><div about="album.html">
>  <span rel="eg:finished">
>     First page
>   <span>This photo was taken by
>     <span property="dc:creator">thomas</span>
>   </span>.
></span>
></div>
>
>Would produce:
><_:span0> eg:finished <_:span0>
><_:span0> dc:creator "thomas"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
>
>While the following example the subject of dc:creator changes:
><div about="album.html">
>  <span>
>     <link rel="eg:finished" />
>     First page
>   <span>This photo was taken by
>     <span property="dc:creator">thomas</span>
>   </span>.
></span>
></div>
>
>Would produce:
><_:span0> eg:finished < >
><album.html> dc:creator "thomas"^^rdf:XMLLiteral
>
>
>Comment #5 - Section 5.3 Reification
>-------------------------------------------------------
>http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/syntax/#id0x031b2f98
>
>You wrote "this document is licensed under a Creative Commons license,
>and that "Ben Adida" is the creator of that licensing statement,"
>
>I may be picky here but I think there is no formal link between the
>licensing triple and the statement thus this is really saying that this
>document is licensed under a Creative Commons license, and "Ben Adida"
>is the creator of a statement saying that this document is licensed
>under a Creative Commons license.
>
>Ok, ok, this is a useless comment ;-)
>
>-- 
>Fabien - http://www.inria.fr/acacia/fabien/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:17:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:04 GMT