W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > February 2008

ARC updated to latest syntax doc, WD feedback

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:52:15 +0100
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20080225215215.268D3.1.1D@semsol.com>


Hi all,

the latest ARC2 revision (2008-02-25)[1] has an updated RDFa extractor
which passes all approved test cases (I think). I've also updated the
extractor[2] linked from CrazyIvan. For some reason, I get a FAIL on 
some tests there, although I'm pretty sure the extractor is compliant. 

I live-logged[3] my way through the spec, which might be helpful as
feedback on the WD (warning: it's a little tongue-in-cheek and/or 
impatient here and there). I also only looked at the processing 
instructions, w/o really reading anything else of the spec. Here is a 
short (chronological) summary for (slightly) better readability:

11:19:14   * there are almost twice as many steps now, compared to the 
  previous spec. I would've expected a simplified final parsing process.

* step 9 is missing

* CURIE is not a valid abbreviation for "compact URI", should be cURI, 
  or CURI, no? or do I need Marie Curie capabilities to spot the E? ;)

* steps 1-6 seem fine to me, easy to follow

* step 7 seems to require a [new subject] in order to create a triple.
  This is not explicitly mentioned in the intro sentence. (this is 
  different from step 6, which explicitly says "none of this ... if 
  there is no [new subject]")(nitpick)

* step 8: fine to me

* step 10: understood, I guess it's identical to the previous spec version

* hmm, "once the triple has been created". There can be multiple, so maybe
  s/the/a/, i.e. *any* XMLLiteral object stops recursion (as I understand 
  it)

* step 11: "using the rules described here". What exactly does *here* refer
  to? step 11, or the whole process sections

* hmm, the distinction between the passed-in context, the current context, and
local variables is a bit confusing, I just used the passed-in context and
overwrote it's values while I was making my way through the process. That
worked fine in the prev. spec, but is apparently not correct now

* hmm, I fail to grok the text in the blue box in step 11

* "the final step (step 12, below) involves returning a flag. If the flag is
true, then incomplete triples are completed in the next step (step 11)"

* I *am* in step 11, s/next/this/ in he last sentence?

* ok, I'll try to read it as "text correct, numbers wrong", then 12 is the
final step, and step 11 is actually step 10 and can point at step 11 as "next
step"

* "after having recursed into the processing of descendants" (could this be 
said in simpler words?)

* ok, I've done step 13 (12) now, that was easy

* now back to 12 (11)

* the "not the local list of incomplete triples" hint is helpful, I would've
been confused again w/o it

 * in step 12, everything from the 3rd block sentence ("Note that if [new
subject] is a bnode, then ... during this step") should perhaps be moved to 
a separate block. The first 2 sentences tell what I should do, I had the
impression I had to add a bnode check for new subject here after reading on.

 * "if direction is not 'forward'": are there any other possible values than
"reverse"?

...

17:45:37 * pass/fail 63/0

I had to tweak the processing rules to get there, though. Something seems to 
be incorrect (or confused me) in the context of processing incomplete triples:

* step 12: "If the [skip element] flag is 'false' ...": this condition should
be removed. Otherwise, a number of test cases don't get a PASS.


HTH,
Benji


[1] http://arc.semsol.org/download
[2] http://arc.web-semantics.org/demos/rdfa_tests/extract.php?url=
[3] http://arc.semsol.org/community/irc/logs/2008/02/22

--
Benjamin Nowack
http://bnode.org/
Received on Monday, 25 February 2008 20:52:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 25 February 2008 20:52:25 GMT