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

Re: review of current draft of 'RDFa syntax'

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:49:07 +0000
Message-ID: <a707f8300801291449j13760795m132f21d8f14b541a@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Diego Berrueta" <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org>
Cc: "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, ben@adida.net

Hi Diego,

Very much appreciated...another excellent review!

I think just about all of your comments are correct, so I'll start
work on incorporating the changes in the next day or so. Obviously
I'll liaise with Shane and Ben as to exactly when we push another
draft out, since we don't want to mess up other reviews that people
are doing, but I would think that it will be early next week.

Once again, thanks for this, and in particular, we're very grateful
for the speed with which you have turned this around.

Regards,

Mark

On 29/01/2008, Diego Berrueta <diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Please find below my review of the current Editor's Draft (25/Jan/2008)
> of the "RDFa Syntax and Processing" [1]:
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080125/
>
> ************
>
> General comment:
>
> The document is in very good shape. I found lots of improvements since
> my last review. The document is packed with examples, which are very
> welcome. Although I tried to spot any potential source of issues, I
> think the most useful feedback will come from early implementors. I
> couldn't review Appendix B because I'm not an expert on DTDs.
>
> ************
>
> Substantial comments:
>
> * Section 5.5, paragraph starting with "Processing begins with...". In
> addition to elements containing one or more RDFa attributes, rules must
> be applied _also_ to elements containing XML namespace declarations and
> xml:lang attributes, even if they don't contain any RDFa attribute.
> Otherwise, if some elements are skipped, rules 2 and 3 may fail to be
> fired. My suggestion here is to simply say that every element should be
> processed.
>
> * Section 5.5: I can't find any rule to set a value for "parent bnode"
> and "parent object". Rules 4 and 5 peek the value of these variables,
> and Rule 6 clear their value, but it seems these variables are never
> assigned a value. Maybe assignment should be done before Rule 10.
>
> * Section 5.5, Rule 6, first subrule: after completing the incomplete
> triples, the "list of incomplete triples" must be cleared.
>
> * Section 5.5, Rule 9, subrule for plain literals: "... a string created
> by concatenating the text content of each of the child elements of the
> current element in document order ...". I think this is inconsistent
> with the example that contains "<strong>Einstein</strong>" at section
> 6.3.1.3. My proposal is to replace "child" with "descendant" in the
> quoted sentence. In XPath, descendant:: is the transitive closure of
> child::, and that's probably closer to the intended meaning of the rule.
>
> * Section 5.5, Rule 9, subrule for typed literals: "... a string created
> by concatenating the inner content of each of the child elements in
> turn...". I do not fully understand the meaning of this sentence. What
> is the precise meaning of "inner" in terms of a DOM tree? In my opinion,
> "inner" only makes sense if you consider the XML serialization of the
> document (i.e.: the substring between the opening tag and the closing
> tag). However, the rules are DOM-driven, not serialization-driven.
>
> * Section 5.5, Rule 9 (and also the last two paragraphs of Section
> 6.3.1.3): this is not a comment, but a question: must the parser descend
> recursively when a non-XML literal has been created by concatenating
> text nodes? I couldn't find a test case for this. In other words, I'm
> not sure which should be the expected outcome of parsing the following
> mark-up:
>
> <p about="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Albert_Einstein">
>   <span property="foaf:name" datatype="">
>      Albert
>      <strong property="foaf:familyName">Einstein</strong>
>   </span>
> </p>
>
> * Section 5.5, Rule 10: "... after processing the child elements, the
> context can be restored". I propose to change the sentence to: "...
> after processing *each* child element, the context can be restored".
> With the current wording, I understand that the context is restored only
> once, after *all* child elements are processed, and therefore, *every*
> child element share the same context (and this is not desirable).
>
> * Section 9.2: the datatype of @instanceof should be CURIEs (note the
> plural).
>
> ************
>
> Editorial comments / suggestions:
>
> *  One of my concerns is that the document is not clear enough with
> respect to a question which, from my experience, is a FAQ: "can I use
> RDFa with arbitrary XML documents?". Although Appendix A makes a fair
> effort to clarify this point, however I find the second paragraph of
> Section 3.9 a bit confusing: "The aim of RDFa is to allow a single RDF
> graph to be carried in an XML document of any type, although this
> specification deals specifically with RDFa in XHTML". Please consider
> adding a sentence to unambiguously (Yes/No) settle this question, or
> make a reference to Appendix A.
>
> * Section "Status of this Document": Incomplete sentence in the third
> paragraph: "These include..."
>
> * Section 2.1, description of "@href": the phrase "also an object, but a
> resource" may be confusing (is it an object, a resource, or maybe
> both?). Please consider a different wording, such as "a resource
> object", in order to highlight that it is *a resource acting as an
> object in a sentence*.
>
> * Section 3.6. In the example, only predicate URIs are abbreviated,
> while subjects and objects are not. Please consider to abbreviate also
> subjects and objects. Alternatively, add a note to indicate that the
> example illustrates how to abbreviate *some* URIs (those acting as
> predicates in the example), and that Turtle allows the remaining ones to
> be abbreviated as well.
>
> *  Section 5.1, third paragraph: two kinds of rules are identified here:
> those which are "host language-specific", and those which are part of
> RDFa. I couldn't find more references to these two kinds in the
> document, so the question is: which rules are of the first kind and
> which ones are of the second kind? how are they different? how they are
> relevant to the processing of an RDFa document?
>
> * Section 5.2: if I understand correctly, the value of "base" never
> changes during the process of RDFa parsing. This is a difference with
> respect to the rest of the components of the evaluation context. I
> suggest to add a sentence to remark that "base" is an invariant.
>
> * Section 5.4.2: what happens if the prefix is void? A reference to
> section 7 might be useful here.
>
> * Section 5.4.2, third step: instead of "Combine", I propose "Concat"
> ("combine" might be a bit ambiguous).
>
> * Section 5.4.4: unmatched end bracket at the end of the second paragraph.
>
> * Section 9.2: the values of @property, @rel and @rev must match
> "reserved word | CURIEs". Therefore, it is impossible to use more than
> one reserved word, or to mix reserved words and CURIEs, although this
> might not be obvious for some readers. My suggestion is to add a
> sentence making explicit this restriction.
>
> * Section 9.4, description of "cite", second example: s/@property/@rel
> (@property makes no sense here because section 9.4 describes values for
> @rev/@rel).
>
> * I'm not sure about this one, but I suspect that the @about attribute
> of the two examples in Section 9.4 should be a @resource (otherwhise,
> which is the object of the triple?). Additionally, please consider
> adding a box with the outcome (in RDF) of these examples.
>
> * Please consider using two different background colors for the boxes
> which contain XHTML+RDFa and the ones that contain RDF triples (Turtle).
> I think it would improve readability.
>
> * Appendix C.1: some references have brackets, but others don't.
>
> * Appendix C.2: the references are not alphabetically ordered.
>
> --
> Diego Berrueta
> R&D Department  -  CTIC Foundation
> E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org
> Phone: +34 984 29 12 12
> Parque Cientifico Tecnologico Gijon-Asturias-Spain
> http://www.fundacionctic.org
>
>
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 22:49:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 29 January 2008 22:49:31 GMT