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

Fwd: Review RDFa LC Primer & Lite documents

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:25:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4F170082.4040705@vu.nl>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Manu, all,

Below some comments on the RDFa Lite and Primer documents. They're 
mainly editorial, I think.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Review RDFa LC Primer & Lite documents
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 16:21:05 +0100
From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>


I've read the RDFa Primer and the RDFa Lite documents:

   RDFa Lite 1.1:

   RDFa 1.1 Primer:

I see no issues for the RDF WG per se. I have some comments. It may be
best if I sent these as personal comments.  See below.


RDFa Lite 1.1:

In general, very readable document. The shortness is a big plus.


1. The abstract, the SOTD section and the Introduction state in total 4
slightly different purposes of the document. The statement in the
abstract that "it does provide a good starting point" seems
inappropriate, as advanced users may have good reasons to limit
themselves to RDFa Lite. I suggest to state the purpose as the "minimal
subset that works in most of the cases and can be understood in 15 min".

2. If you want to encourage the practice of not creating blank nodes (as
rightly stated in the Primer) I would include "about"  in Sec. 2.1 Now
it looks optional/nice-to-have.

3. I suggest to show the resulting triples, possibly in an appendix.

4. For properties pointing to a resource you only give an image example,
with an "sec" attribute. Are you avoiding on purpose the use of "href"?
I suggest "href" should be part of Lite.

5. The example in 3.1 contains none of the RDFa Lite constructs, so it
not a good example (although conformant).

RDFa 1.1 Primer:

This is also an easy-to-read document. My main problems are with the
choice of examples, in particular in the "Going Deeper" section.

1. The social network example in Sec 3.2 contains three blank nodes,
despite the fact that you stated a few lines before that this is not
good practice.  I suggest to include an "about" attribute for Bob/Eve/Manu.

Question: would it not be good practice to leave out the typeof
attribute for Bob/Eve/Manu?  I would include the knows property earlier
in the examples, and then we can let the RDFa processor work this out.

2. My guess is that the explanation in Sec. 3.1. of why "rel" is needed
and how it works is too brief for newcomers. A nontrivial notion plus
rationale is described here in one short paragraph. If I try to think as
a newcomer and consider the example below this paragraph, e.g.

   <li typeof="Person">
         <a rel="homepage" href="http://example.com/bob/"

then I would have real problems understanding what is happening (e.g.
how the three property values are related). I suggest to explain this in
significant more detail.

3. Figure 7 has again blank nodes; suggest to try to get rid of these;
see 1st comment.

4. Sec. 3.3, 2nd example

   <h3 rel="creator" resource="#me">Alice</h3>

You explain why the example uses |resource" instead of "href", but not
why you use "rel" instead of "property" (like the CC license link in the
last example of 2.4. Clarify this.

5. Genera: " avoid terms like "of course" and "easily"
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 17:25:47 UTC

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