Re: HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call Draft is Ready

On Jan 20, 2013, at 11:16 PM, "Niklas Lindström" <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).

Yes, this is correct; the rdfa:Pattern should not be copied; however, this isn't the language we used before, which also prevented this from being copied.

The remove triples also has an explicit pattern for deleting the rdfa:Pattern from the target, which is unnecessary.

Gregg

> 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
> resources).
> 
> 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. :)
> 
> Cheers,
> Niklas
> 
> 
>> 
>> 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 Monday, 21 January 2013 06:14:24 UTC