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

Re: comment on the RDFa Core review comments

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:03:51 -0600
Message-ID: <4F2035F7.6070200@aptest.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
I have removed this diagram from the source.

On 1/25/2012 4:43 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> :-)
>
> Ivan
>
> On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:39 , Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>
>> Please, please, please do me a favour and drop 'my' figure. This is prior art from some four years ago and certainly only confuses people.
>>
>> /me over and out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 	Michael
>> --
>> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
>> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
>> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
>> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
>> Ireland, Europe
>> Tel. +353 91 495730
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> http://sw-app.org/about.html
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2012, at 10:34, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>>> And yet another point...
>>>
>>> A while ago, when we were discussing the restructuring of the processing steps with @property, I have come up with a complete diagram (well, a series thereof) for the processing steps.
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/Processing
>>>
>>> I am not sure it is 100% correct, I am not sure it is 100% useful... but I wonder whether this is something we want to use for something.
>>>
>>> Caveat: I made a mess and I lost the original source for this (I guess it was either keynote or powerpoint) so I would have to reproduce it if we decided to use this. But that can be done, of course.
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:18 , Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Taking a somewhat more general view.
>>>>
>>>> The figure is an updated figure we had in the 1.0 rec, and landed in this document through a comment of Michael Hausenblas. But this was _before_ the radical change on the behaviour of @property. I wonder whether keeping it in the document is actually o.k.: it gives the mistaken impression that this is _the only_ behavioural view of @property which is way off base these days. Ie, we may be better off removing the figure altogether.
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 25, 2012, at 11:01 , Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, an interesting situation... There are two comments on the figure on @property->literal evaluation:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> - Niklas says:
>>>>>
>>>>> The image with caption "Literal object resolution" is too big,
>>>>> causing scrollbars to appear.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Manu says:
>>>>>
>>>>> The image is too small to make out what it says.
>>>>>
>>>>> The two comments cancel each other out... I am not sure what I should do, if anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>
>>>>> ----
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ----
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Wednesday, 25 January 2012 17:04:22 UTC

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