W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: HTML+RDFa source updated (ISSUE-97, ISSUE-144, ISSUE-146)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 07:45:48 +0100
Cc: RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99BFEC27-EA23-4CEF-8BA6-7E57185D4AC6@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Gregg,

some more editorial issues, sorry not to have raised them earlier

- I am a bit surprised to see the detailed 3.4 section on XML Literals. Is there anything there that is HTML5 specific? Or are these further explanation on what is defined in Core? In general, we should keep the HTML5+RDFa document to the minimum, and describe really the deltas only. Besides, for the core audience of HTML5+RDFa XML Literals may not have a huge importance. This is just a question, in fact...

- I guess ISSUE 2, ie, the at-riskness of Reference folding, should be put at the beginning of section 3.5, and not only at the technical details. It is the whole feature that is at risk, not only the technical definition...

- Example 6 and 7: although technically correct, there is a difference between the two examples insofar as the first one uses @vocab and, therefore, no 'schema' prefix, whereas the second doesn't do that. I would propose to enclose the second example into the same div+vocab structure to make the similarities and differences clearer.

Ivan

On Jan 1, 2013, at 23:53 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> I've updated the document based on suggestions, and saved it Overview.html [2]. As RDF Concepts is explicit about the need for authors to include any @lang or @xmlns within the markup, the note about doing this has been removed. The reference to RDF-CONCEPTS provides sufficient detail for implementors, and doesn't need to be repeated here.
> 
> Gregg
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
> 
> On Jan 1, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 1, 2013, at 4:28 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Gregg,
>>> 
>>> minor comments, in view of a (hopefully) Last Call publication.
>>> 
>>> 1. Item #12 in section 3.1: There is a remark on whether @value will be retained or not. I guess, editorially, this should be a note after the bullet items, and maybe flag this item as an 'at risk feature'.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 2. Item #13, HTML Literal, Note: is this correct? I mean, if we are talking about an HTML datatype, setting the prefixes would mean adding xmlns:XXX to the generated HTML literal. Isn't that a big no-no? Or are we talking about @prefix declarations to be put here?
>> 
>> That's how the DT is defined in Concepts, but IMO, this should only be for XHTML. The purposes of node naming require the @xmlns; I don't think this is to maintain prefix state. If one of the purposes of rdf:HTML is to create a simpler, more usable type, I think we should consider not promoting @prefix and only promoting @xmlns for XHTML.
>> 
>>> 3. Section 3.5.1, note on 'at risk': I wonder whether we should call out in the text that this feature has a strong relationship to @itemref...
>> 
>> I don't think we should reference microdata at all.
>> 
>>> 4. Section 3.5.1, first paragraph: I think the reference should not only be RDFa Core 1.1 but also the HTML5 extras in this document.
>> 
>> +1
>> 
>>> 5. Section 3.4.2, first paragraph: I am not sure it is worth referring here to the entailment rules of RDF Semantics. First of all, it will tend to scare away people; but, in fact, the text here can/should be self-consistent anyway, so that referenced does not really add any new information. I propose to remove it.
>> 
>> Okay, then we'll probably need to expand on the pattern notation.
>> 
>>> 6. Section 3.4.2, did we say that a simple example would be useful here?
>> 
>> Did you mean 3.5.1? There is no 3.4.2. If so, there are two examples in 3.5, which I think are adequate.
>> 
>> Gregg
>> 
>>> Note to ourselves:
>>> 
>>> - add an example (or two) on the reference folding into the new version of the primer
>>> - we have to publish a new version of the RDFa namespace document, including rdfa:ref and rdfa:Prototype
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Ivan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Dec 28, 2012, at 01:57 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Prior to the next conference call, I updated the HTML+RDFa spec to include some missing elements and added a "Reference Folding" section. That section, in particular, could benefit from some more editorial work.
>>>> 
>>>> * Relevant to ISSUE-97, I added text to use the text content of a <time> element, if the element has no @datetime or @content attributes.
>>>> * Relevant to ISSUE-144, I added a "Reference Folding" section with a short description of the feature, and nomative language specified using Ivan's SPARQL UPDATE.
>>>> * Relevant to ISSUE-146, I added missing steps for head/body.
>>>> 
>>>> Gregg Kellogg
>>>> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>>> 
>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/Overview-src.html
>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/97
>>>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/144
>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/146
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----
>>> 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







Received on Wednesday, 2 January 2013 06:46:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC