W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2012

Re: Some comments on the RDFa 1.1 Core and Primer

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:46:42 +0100
Cc: public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <087454AF-4269-4BD9-9D71-BF58F3901385@w3.org>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>

just minor remarks

On Jan 12, 2012, at 01:00 , Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 3. As we've discussed, in RDF 1.1 there will be no "plain" literals at
> all; they will all have a datatype. The current plain literals without
> language will all be of type xsd:string, and plain literals with a
> language will become rdf:langString(!). I recently discovered that
> when looking at the latest SPARQL 1.1 WD (now in Last Call) [2]. (See
> also the discussion [3] about how the SPARQL-WG handled that.)
> I still think our decision (and the advice from Richard Cyganiak)
> holds about how we needn't worry to much about that though. In fact,
> rdf:langString actually makes things more uniform. But it may be
> prudent to think again if we should stick a note to the end of section
> "3.4 Plain literals" mentioning exactly this. I can volunteer to write
> that note.

Any note on this subject must be informative. The RDF WG's decision is in the editor's draft at the moment, will become part of the next RDF draft. But, as we very well know in this WG:-), things may radically change before a draft becomes a Rec. Ie, we cannot, normatively, refer to any change in the Literal structure at this moment.

That being said, having informative note there acknowledging that we know about this evolution, and RDFa processors may update their behaviour in future might indeed be a good idea.

> - In "9. RDFa Contexts": The property rdfa:uri.

I am happy to change that if the WG agrees, just noting to myself that this means changing the 'ns' file (and implementations:-)

> 6. "B. The RDFa Vocabulary": I believe we should look this over to
> make sure everyone is satisfied with the terms and definitions of this
> vocabulary. Here are some concerns:
> - There is rdfa:uri, as just mentioned, which should reasonably be
> named rdfa:iri.
> - There is rdfa:usesVocabulary which at least Toby Inkster and I think
> should be named rdfa:vocab. I think that is important since *every*
> document containing @vocab will produce a triple with that as a
> predicate, so we should make sure the name of it sits well with
> people.

Why reopening a discussion that has been closed? Any new argument or evidence?

I am not bound to the current name, but, at this time in the process, we should avoid spending time on issues that we already have an agreement on.

> - That might also call for renaming rdfa:vocabulary to e.g.
> rdfa:defaultVocabulary (or merge these, albeit I'm unsure of the
> semantic validity of that).

I wonder whether that stuff is still needed. This was a remain of the profile time when a profile could set the default vocabulary. Can a language profile do that? If not, this predicate is actually moot...

> Also its description confuses me a bit,
> ending with "the value is can be any string; for documentation
> purposes it is advised to use the string ‘true’ or ‘True’".

That was a necessity. The point is that we have only triples, and we just wanted to have a kind of a flag for a URI. I would leave it as is...

> ## Comments on RDFa 1.1 Primer ##
> 1. In Section "5.2 Automatic Summaries":
> The example starts with a <div> containing:
>    about="#me" typeof="foaf:Person"
> Currently, the subsequent <ol>, where interests are linked with a
> hanging rel, is:
>    <ol about="#me" typeof="foaf:Person" rel="foaf:interest">
> This doesn't need the repeated @about and @typeof. It should only be:
>    <ol rel="foaf:interest">

I will look at that later today...

> 2. In "7. Acknowledgments", change "Niklas Linström" to "Niklas Lindström". :)

Doh. Sorry... Will do this later today...

> 3. I think we came to the conclusion that we should add text (or a
> note) in the Primer about how @resource can be used to provide a new
> subject? We said so at the end of the last telecon [4]. (This was
> regardless of changing Lite to include it -- that is we considered it
> to be wise since not a lot of people have noticed this potentially
> useful usage pattern.) Is this desirable? If so I can volunteer to
> draft such a note.

Ah! I was not on that telco and I did not notice that. I think it is a good idea, so a draft would be very welcome indeed!



> Best regards,
> Niklas Lindström
> --
> <http://neverspace.net/>
> [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-concepts-20040210/#section-Literals
> [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-sparql11-query-20120105/#func-datatype
> [3]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011OctDec/0153.html
> [4]: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-15

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 12 January 2012 08:48:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:54 UTC