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

WG comments on RDFa Lite 1.1 for LC publishing, second version (ACTION-106)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:16:42 +0100
Message-Id: <2A551EC1-3CA9-4C80-8563-732A2548CC4B@w3.org>
Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Manu,

I am sorry to have created a mess with my review of the earlier version of the document. To avoid misunderstandings, here is my review again, please ignore the previous one!

Ivan

1. Introduction

I do not think the sentence

[[[
The RDFa syntax [RDFA-CORE] is often criticized as having too much functionality, leaving first-time authors confused about the more advanced features. This lighter version of RDFa helps authors easily jump into the structured data world. The goal was to create a very minimal subset that will work for 80% of the folks out there doing simple data markup.
]]]

is appropriate and good in a Rec. Something like that might be better for the full paragraph:

[[[
The RDFa syntax [RDFA-CORE] provides a rich functionality making it possible to represent fairly complex structures (essentially any RDF graph) in an HTML or XML content. However, that complexity may make it difficult for authors, who may not be experts in structured data, to use RDFa. This lighter version of RDFa helps authors to start using the structured data world more easily. The goal is to provide a minimal subset that will work for 80% of authors doing simple data markup.
]]]

2.1. vocab, typeof and property

A reference to both microformats and microdata should be added (first sentence). 

2.2. about

" using a unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL)" we had the issue on the usage of URI vs. URL. We should have a consistency across document which, in this case, I believe would mean to use URI-s. The document should be checked for the URL/URI issue overall.

2.3 prefix

In the example: maybe my zoological knowledge is poor, but is there such an animal as 'Liger'? Or did you mean 'Tiger'?:-)

Also: why using the <a> element for the (T|L)iger? I think a <span> would be more appropriate.

2. (General comment)

- An attentive reader of RDFa 1.1 Core might realize that, in all places, a full URI can be used. Ie, @vocab is not the _only_ way of doing things. It may be worth noting that and adding an example on that in the section (with a special attention to those who want to see only full URI-s). 

- It may also be worth adding an example where more than one type is used for an entity, possibly with one being specified via a full URI. THis is one of the features that is difficult to express in microdata...

- I wonder how to express that in the document... The examples are deliberately simple. Misleadingly so, in fact... using RDFa Lite, more complex structures can be expressed and the reader may *think* that those are not 'legal'. (Eg, @property based chaining with @typeof is possible)

One way of doing that would be declare the whole of section 2 as informative, and make a reference to the Primer for further examples. We could then review the primer (we have time for that) to make it much more explicit about Lite or not Lite. That would leave section 3 as being THE normative section, which probably means that allowed RDFa Lite attributes should be explicitly listed there, too, e.g., by 

"RDFa attributes other than those described in this specification" -> "RDFa attributes other than about, property, prefix, vocab, or typeof"


----
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 Tuesday, 17 January 2012 16:15:42 UTC

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