comments on RDFa Syntax

Hey folks,

Comments on the RDFa Syntax Doc:
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070912/

At a high level, I think this document is now *very* useful for
implementors. I'm a bit worried that Sections 4 and 5 have enough
overlap that we could miss some inconsistencies. Let's be very careful
in the reviews.

Nice job,

-Ben

==================

ORIENTATION
- the cclicenses namespace defined in the third
code block is not used, but there is no definition for the cc namespace.

New codeblock:

  <a xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#"
     rel="cc:license"
     href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/nc-nd/3.0/">
     Creative Commons License
  </a>

- as per Manu's comment: we need to highlight chunks of HTML that are
interesting, especially when only one attribute is added to 10 lines of
HTML. Same goes for the Primer of course.

- Shane mentioned whole document blocks need a DOCTYPE declaration in
the Primer: same applies here, I think.


RDF TERMINOLOGY
- first paragraph "you do not need to understood RDF at all"
  understood --> understand

- 3.2: "more usually" --> "usually"

- 3.3: spacing between the last block of actual triples would help
legibility.


PROCESSING MODEL
4.1
- "visiting each of its child elements in turn". This implies that you
have to visit one child and *then* its sibling, when actually you could
parallelize it. You can take out "in turn."


- "whether more triples might be generated during processing than are
outlined here". What do you mean here? Where might other triples come
from? I'm confused by the purpose of this statement.

4.2
- "the URL of the document being proessed,"
  proessed --> processed

- it seems the wrong place to specify initialization values for the
variables at this point, since they're mentioned in 4.3. Just describe
what the variables are.

- The "recurse" and "chaining" flags are not mentioned. They should be.

4.3
- The "recurse" and "chaining" flags are not initialized. They should be.

- The rule seems to imply that @src overrides @href? I believe the order
is @resource, @href, @src.

- Rules #4 and #5 are a bit problematic: I can only imagine that #4 is
evaluated before #5, which means that @instanceof (#5) doesn't get a
chance to set the chaining flag in time for the [current resource] swap
(#4). I suspect we don't need a specific chaining flag, instead, we can
change the rules as follows:

Rule #4: if there is a @rel, @rev, or @instanceof on the element,
chaining occurs: set [current resource] to [current object resource].

Rule #5: same as now, except use [current resource] as subject instead
of [current object resource].


- I'm not sure what to think about not recursing down XML Literals... Is
that really what we want? What's the argument here?

IMO, if the RDFa in the XML literal is not self-contained, then it's
going to be a *very* weird XML Literal to throw around. If it *is*
self-contained, e.g. with an enclosing @about and all required
namespaces, then why not parse the RDFa?

- The idea of "pushing the current evaluation context on the stack"
doesn't quite capture the idea that it is passed as an argument to the
recursion step... unless you're thinking of a stack in a true
machine-language manner where arguments are pushed on the stack... Maybe
a bit of clarification would be good here?


5. RDFa in Detail
- attribute for setting object: @src missing.

- xml:base should not be supported
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/track/issues/59

5.2.2.2:
- "for example when a picture is taken by Mark, but that picture also
depicts him:"

that's not what the markup says. The markup says:

  rel="dc:creator" rev="foaf:img"

and the triples match.

change the markup and triples, or the text.

5.2.2.4.1:
- weird indentations


6. CURIEs

For now, take out the reference to the external document. You're just
asking for trouble :) Calling them "CURIEs" is a good enough reference.
If I'd written it, I would have just talked about "Compact URIs", but it
seems the furor around the word "CURIEs" has waned, so okay, let's keep
the terminology.

Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 02:33:08 UTC