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

Re: Fwd: Review RDFa LC Primer & Lite documents

From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 00:27:20 +0100
Message-ID: <4F1C9B58.70103@vu.nl>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org


On 21-01-2012 22:40, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Thank you for doing reviews of the documents, Guus. This e-mail only
> contains a response to your RDFa Lite 1.1 review.
>
> On 01/18/2012 12:25 PM, Guus Schreiber wrote:
>> =================================== RDFa Lite 1.1:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-lite-20111208/
>> ===================================
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> 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".
>
> Changed to:
>
> RDFa Lite is a minimal subset of RDFa consisting of a few attributes
> that may be applied to most simple to moderate structured data markup
> tasks. While it is not a complete solution for advanced markup tasks, it
> does work for most day-to-day needs and can be grasped by most Web
> authors with minimal effort.
>
> I stayed away from stating a time limit (15 minutes) because it seemed
> arbitrary... I don't think we should claim that it will only take X
> minutes for someone to learn RDFa Lite... it all depends on how deep you
> go down the rabbit hole. :)

Manu,

Sure, only included the 15 min because it was in your original text.

>
>> 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.
>
> Unfortunately, schema.org encourages people to create blank nodes over
> identifying the concepts in the page. The example shown is exactly how
> schema.org is intended to be used. The other concern is perceived
> complexity. The RDFa Lite document is meant to convey the idea that RDFa
> can be very simple to use. We've been "fighting the RDF is complicated
> and hard" argument for so long and in this case, we need to show how
> simple it can be to express /a/ piece of data in RDFa... even though it
> may not be the ideal way to express it.
>
> In other words - by using @about for the simple examples, it is often
> perceived that RDFa is more complicated than Microdata or Microformats,
> which is not true... but the example is meant to fight that perception,
> so introducing @about at that time would defeat one of the goals of the
> example.
>
> We do explain later on that you can identify things on the page with
> @about... so, hopefully, the concept shouldn't be completely lost on the
> reader. We also point people to look at the RDFa Primer, which uses
> @about more readily than the examples in RDFa Lite.

Point taken, fine.

>
>> 3. I suggest to show the resulting triples, possibly in an appendix.
>
> The choice to not show or talk about RDF or triples was a conscious one.
> Talking about the data model was something that was left to the RDFa
> Primer. There is now a sentence in the RDFa Lite spec that says this:
>
> """
> If you would like to learn more about what is possible with RDFa Lite,
> including an introduction to the data model, please read the section on
> RDFa Lite in the RDFa Primer [RDFA-PRIMER].
> """

Good compromise.

>
>> 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.
>
> No, not avoiding, just trying to be succinct. :) I added an @href
> example to section 2.1.

Thanks, I think that's an improvement.

>
>> 5. The example in 3.1 contains none of the RDFa Lite constructs, so
>> it not a good example (although conformant).
>
> That section has been completely rewritten. Please let us know if the
> new section is better.

OK by me.

>
> Again, thank you very much for doing a review of the RDFa Lite document,
> Guus. 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).

I'm satisfied with the response.

Guus

>
> -- manu
>
Received on Sunday, 22 January 2012 23:27:57 UTC

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