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

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

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 15:04:14 -0500
Message-ID: <4F1B1A3E.3090505@digitalbazaar.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 01/17/2012 11:16 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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. ]]]

Updated with:

The full RDFa syntax [RDFA-CORE] provides a number of basic and advanced
features that enable authors to express fairly complex structured data,
such as relationships among people, places, and events in an HTML or
XML document. Some of these advanced features may make it difficult for
authors, who may not be experts in structured data, to use RDFa.
This lighter version of RDFa is a gentler introduction to the world of
structured data, intended for authors that want to express fairly simple
data in their web pages. 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).

Done.

> 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.

The choice to use "URL" was a very deliberate one. :)

Beginning web authors are going to be reading this document, and rather
than confuse them with the URI/IRI/URL distinction, I used what I think
is the most colloquial form of saying "identifier" among Web authors -
"URL". I checked the document for consistency and believe we use "URL"
everywhere.

> 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'?:-)

Shane specifically requested that we use the example of a Liger because
it, metaphorically, captures what we hope to achieve with RDFa Lite. He
is an expert in this area. I suggest we listen to him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

:P

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

Fixed.

> 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).

I think that the purpose of this document is to give people a very quick
overview of RDFa Lite and outline document conformance, nothing more.
That is, I don't think we should put lots of examples in the document
because that will lead to a longer document and may lead to people
thinking that RDFa Lite is more complicated than it is. We have had very
positive feedback so far on the simplicity of the document, let's keep
it simple.

I do think you have a point - we need to outline some of these more
"advanced" RDFa Lite features... but let's do that in the Primer.
Perhaps the Primer should start out by teaching RDFa Lite and then move
on to the more complex form of RDFa?

> - 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 think we should put this in the Primer.

> - 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)

I think we should clarify this in the RDFa Primer.

> 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.

Done.

> 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

Agreed.

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

Done.

Ivan, please let us know if these changes have satisfied your concerns
by Wednesday, February 1st 2012 (the day before we decide to enter the
Last Call period).

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/
Received on Saturday, 21 January 2012 20:04:46 UTC

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