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

Re: new draft for the RDFa Primer

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:54:07 +0100
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <9C1C60BC-41C0-47C1-94C3-660DF03DA061@w3.org>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>

On Jan 31, 2013, at 24:08 , Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ivan,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> Guys,
>> 
>> I have made some editing on the Primer, and a new draft is at
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/Overview-src.html
> 
> Great; thanks!
> 
>> most of the changes were the various error reports coming in since the last publication. I have also added a new section (2.1.3) on the property copying stuff (and also a note in section 2.1.4 that tackles a similar problem but using @resource). Comments please...
> 
> Some remarks on section 2.1.3:
> 
> * It should be made clear that (as of RDFa 1.1) this feature is only
> available for HTML. Perhaps rephrasing "RDFa introduces the notion of
> "Property copying" to alleviate this situation." into something like
> "HTML+RDFa introduces the notion of "Property copying" to alleviate
> this situation.", will do.

Indeed. I did it.

(This is a bit of an issue, by the way. My implementation, currently, implements this feature for all RDFa content and does not check for the HTML5 part. I guess it should... Should we add tests to our test suite to explicitly disallow this feature for, say, SVG+RDFa, or should we stay silent about this?)

> 
> * Should the "at risk" warning be added until we've decided on this feature?
> 

I was wondering about that. On the other hand, this is an editor's draft only; the question is when do we want to issue a new draft. If we want to issue it next week, in conjunction with the HTML+RDFa LC, then of course this should be added. If, however, we issue a new draft only when we go to CR or PR with HTML+RDFa, then it is o.k. not to mention this for now.


> * The @resource used to declare the pattern is missing the octothorp
> used in the @href:s. It should be:
> 
>   <div resource="#ccpattern" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">

Oops. Yes indeed!

> 
> (I'd still personally prefer to use bnode-IDs instead of frag-IDs (and
> thus @resource in the links) if I were to use pattern copying; mainly
> because the patterns are "throw-away" resources. But as long as the
> pattern names don't conflict with other resources, it doesn't really
> matter. And granted, bnode-IDs are harder to grasp.)

Exactly. Yes, I would also use bnode id-s and I thought of using those in the example, but we do not really talk about bnodes in the primer, so I decided not to go down that route in this section. It would do more harm than good imho.

Thanks Niklas!

Ivan


> 
> Cheers,
> Niklas
> 
> 
>> Also: Gregg or Manu: is it worth the trouble changing respec to the newest version? What does it entail for the document?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> 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







Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 09:54:37 UTC

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