- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 14:25:31 +0000
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Thanks Shane :) Shane McCarron wrote: > Thanks for your detailed review. I have made edit based upon your > comments. My responses inline. > > On 3/4/2011 9:34 AM, Nathan wrote: >> Hi Shane, All, >> >> Just a few editorial comments after reviewing the latest draft, quoted >> text indented. >> >> general comment: >> - The spec uses URL 26 times, IRI 5 times, and URI 206 times. I'd >> suggest URL is swapped to URI, and the 3 of the mentions of IRI (under >> 6.1) are also swapped to URI. > > I have made this change. I think that the distinction between URIs and > IRIs is lost on the casual reader, and our normative reference to RFC > 3987 makes it completely clear to the non-casual reader. > >> >> >> Section by Section feedback: >> >> Section 2. >> >> You might have noticed that a number of the prefixes above have a >> trailing '#'. >> >> s/prefixes/URIs >> > > Fixed > >> >> Section 2.1 >> >> ... in (X)HTML, @rel already defines the relationship between one >> document and another. However, in (X)HTML there is no clear way to >> add new values; RDFa sets out to explicitly solve this problem ... >> >> the meaning of rel has changed significantly in the next (X)HTML, and >> this section deals with syntax changes, so it may be wise to skirt >> this subject and change the text to: >> >> ... in (X)HTML, there is no clear way to add new @rel values; RDFa >> sets out to explicitly solve this problem ... >> > > Changed > >> Section 2.2 >> >> In HTML, authors can include metadata and relationships concerning the >> current document by using the link and meta elements. >> >> the order they are described and mentioned is inverted such that it >> may be confusing, consider changing to: >> >> In HTML, authors can include metadata and relationships concerning the >> current document by using the meta and link elements. >> /or/ >> In HTML, authors can describe relationships and insert metadata >> concerning the current document by using the link and meta elements. > > Changed. > >> >> next.. >> >> RDFa supports the use of @rel and @rev on any element. This is even >> more useful when with the addition of support for different >> vocabularies: >> >> "when with" doesn't make much sense, needs a reword. > > LOL. fixed. > >> >> next.. >> >> If some displayed text is different to the actual 'value' it >> represents, more precise values can be added, which can optionally >> include datatypes: >> >> this changes between singular and plural, and doesn't introduce the >> @datatype property like the others, consider changing to: >> >> If some displayed text is different to the actual 'value' it >> represents, a more precise value can be added, which can optionally >> include a @datatype: > > Changed > >> >> next... >> >> In many cases a block of markup will contain a number of properties >> that relate to the same item; it's possible with RDFa to indicate the >> type of that item: >> >> this also doesn't introduce @typeof, needs a post fixed "using the >> @typeof attribute:" or similar. >> x > > Fixed. > >> next... >> >> A simple way of defining a portion of a document to use FOAF terms is >> to use @vocab to define a default vocabulary URI: >> >> this is worded to sound like you can only use FOAF terms with @vocab - >> needs reworded to something like: >> >> A simple way of defining a portion of a document as using terms from >> a specific vocabulary, is to use @vocab to define a default vocabulary >> URI. For example to use FOAF terms: > > Fixed. > >> >> immediately following this example the spec says "the following >> triples will be generated:", which comes from no where and is the >> first usage of turtle in the spec, this text needs expanded to >> something like: >> >> The example above will produce the following triples, expressed here >> in [Turtle] syntax: >> >> where [Turtle] probably links to 3.6 > > Fixed. > >> >> next... >> >> The example profile has had the @typeof's stripped again, Jeni's >> feedback was to change to typeof="rdfa:PrefixMapping", which was done, >> but now stripped - can we get this put back please :) - likewise th >> example which follows which introduce terms in profiles has typeof="" >> again. > > Ivan fixed this back. > >> >> >> Section 3. >> >> However, what RDFa represents is RDF. In order to author RDFa you do >> not need to understand RDF, although it would certainly help. However, >> if you are building a system that consumes the RDF output of a >> language that supports RDFa you will almost certainly need to >> understand RDF. >> >> pleaseeeee can we above that word represents, and also double use of >> However as an opener, consider: >> >> RDFa is short for RDF in Attributes. In order to author RDFa you do >> not ... >> > > Sure > >> >> Section 4.2 >> >> s/default graphto/default graph to/ >> >> s/The processor graph term/The term processor graph/ >> >> s/that may be used by the RDFa Processor/that may be generated by the >> RDFa Processor/ > > Fixed. > >> >> >> Section 6. >> >> This specification does not define a 'no prefix' mapping. >> >> Can we have some text or a note in there to let people know that if >> they, or an RDFa host language, does define a 'no prefix' mapping, >> it'll effectively break their RDFa? (curies with no prefix mapping in >> about issue). Likewise for the text under "In RDFa these values are >> defined as follows:", remembering that the "no prefix" mapping != the >> default vocabulary mapping. We can't have implementers confusing the >> two, or even using 'no prefix'. > > OK. > >> >> Section 6.1 >> >> Three mentions of "IRIs", should probably be "URIs", section 6 already >> clarifies they are also valid IRIs, thus the text can be confusing >> "compact URIs expends to IRIs" etc. > > Done. > >> >> >> and.. that's it. I skipped section 7 in detail (need to implement for >> proper feedback) and the rest looks fine! >> >> Best, >> >> Nathan > > Thanks again! >
Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 14:27:11 UTC