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

Re: HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call Draft is Ready

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:15:41 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5jeA=EjLerxVj+3RSrAefZAW4yujCSt9Qesa-YwD3-190w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> I see on issue.
> The pattern-copy rule currently says:
> if
> ?subject rdfa:copy ?target
> ?target ?predicate ?object
> then add
> ?subject ?predicate ?object
> I believe the 'if' clause should also include
> ?target rdf:type rdfa:Pattern

I agree.

Also, when copying, I don't think the rdf:type of rdfa:Pattern should
be copied; right? So I believe the "then add: ?subject ?predicate
?object" needs a condition, like "unless: ?predicate = rdf:type and
?object = rdfa:Pattern" (possibly put in a new rightmost column).

Furthermore, the text in "3.5 Pattern copying" uses the word "item" or
"items" in four places. I think we should say "resource" consistently
(there are no "RDFa items", there are only descriptions, in RDFa, of

I notice the examples use @rel and not @property. While the markup is
shorter, we might want to use @property to keep them Lite?

Anyway, I feel that "Pattern" works really well (better than
"Prototype") to convey the meaning. I might even be ok with "copy",
albeit it reads more imperative than declarative. :)


> Ivan
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 04:24 , Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I have prepped the HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call draft. All resolutions made
>> by this group have been applied. All issues have been processed by the
>> RDFa WG. I have ensured that all resolutions have matching specification
>> text. I also made a complete pass through the spec to fix issues related
>> to consistency, grammar, and flow. The document validates, the links do
>> not right now, but that will be fixed before publication. The
>> specification can be found here:
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/
>> We need two other reviews by anybody on this mailing list before we go
>> to Last Call. The document is short, it should take about an hour to
>> carefully read through the document. Please volunteer and send in your
>> review comments ASAP.
>> I have also discussed changing the short-name associated with the
>> specification with Ivan and Thomas (the Domain Lead for this work). The
>> change would be from 'rdfa-in-html' to 'html-rdfa' to match the
>> 'xhtml-rdfa' specification. Other specifications like 'svg-rdfa' and
>> 'epub-rdfa' may follow the new short-name pattern. The old
>> 'rdfa-in-html' shortname would be HTTP 301 'Permanent redirect'ed to
>> the new 'html-rdfa' location.
>> RDFa WG members, here is the proposal to take the document into Last
>> Call. +1/0/-1 the proposal as soon as you feel that you are ready to
>> provide an opinion on the matter.
>> PROPOSAL: Publish the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as a Last Call Working
>> Draft. Change the short-name to 'html-rdfa'. Publish the specification
>> on January 31st, 2013 with a LC period of 3 weeks from the time of
>> publication.
>> -- manu
>> --
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals
>> http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/
> ----
> 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 Sunday, 20 January 2013 22:16:40 UTC

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