W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-calendar@w3.org > September 2005

Re: RDF Calendar - Short review

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:54:41 -0400
Message-Id: <E66A3CC2-C50F-46D8-AF8B-8C00705B15F3@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-calendar@w3.org
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>

Le 05-09-29 à 16:34, Dan Connolly a écrit :
>> * Reading the document
>>      Sometimes the document is a bit difficult to understand in its
>> organization. [...]
>> You might find a template which suits for your document.
> Hmm... I can imagine ways to make the document easier to read,
> but constraining the sections to be more uniform doesn't seem
> like it will help.

It was a suggestion, but yes you have certainly a better knowledge.  
It's just sometimes I felt lost in the comments.

>> * Links through the text
>>      If someone prints the text, all links reference will be lost.
> I think that's a problem with common HTML printing software,
> not with this document.

hehe ;)
Interesting because I interpret Engelbart with a little nuance. For  
me a reference behind a link is bit like a footnote, go see there if  
you need more information. In your document you added footnotes ;)

One way of doing it, if you put the whole text which matters for  
understanding in a div. For example, in your document.

[Table of content here]
<div id="content">
     <h2 id="intro">1. Introduction</h2>

You could apply the following stylesheet.

#content a:link:after, #content a:visited:after {
    content: " (" attr(href) ") ";
    font-size: 90%;
#content a[href^="/"]:after {
    content: " (http://www.w3.org" attr(href) ") ";

At least, it works in Mozilla, Camino, etc. I haven't tried everywhere.

>> You might want to add [LINK-REF] through the text. OR give a
>> printable version of your document with explicit references.
> There's a references section at the end.

     Yes but without the URIs as I was saying at the start, then my  
comment ;)

>> * Examples markup and style.
>>      I found the CSS style of examples a bit rough. If you want I
>> could propose you a style, but I wanted to be sure that you were open
>> to a suggestion.
> Feel free to play around with
>   http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/report1173.html
> and commit any changes that you're reasonably confident are
> improvements.

ok on my todo list for next week. I'll give you a suggestion.

>> * 3. A simple example
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-rdfcal-20050929/#exsim
>> I would add a bit more context for your simple example. Tell a story
>> even in one very small paragraph, ala  @@I was planning to attend
>> the  scooby conference, so with calendaring application …@@
>>      A reader will understand even more.
> But the point of that example has nothing to do with the scooby
> conference; the point of that section is to show the structure
> of iCalendar components/properties and show how that structure
> is similar to RDF class/property structure.
> Perhaps this example should be changed so that it fits
> with the shop hours example better. If we do that, it'll make
> more sense to tell a story.

Ok maybe I was not clear. For a new reader who's discovering for the  
first time an ICS file. It's a bit rough as an introduction :) It's  
why I would have liked to see a human readable equivalent, then the  
ICS, then the RDF.

>> * "footnotes"
>>      I didn't find obvious the understanding of footnotes in your
>> document.
> No? if you recognized them as footnotes, then you understood.

No. I haven't first see them in the text. And suddenly I have seen  
the first thing with a "st" and a box. I thought "wow bug, some text  
is missing and why this is here. It doesn't make sense. Read 3 times.  
"What the hell". Scratching my head. Gave up, look at the source code  
and seen footnote, then "Aaaaaaah". Understood.

But I think you don't expect everyone does like me ;)

>> * Notation 3 rules syntax
>>      => When I follow the link to Notation 3, I found a document
>> which is hard to read and not very explicit to understand what is the
>> notion of rules in Notation 3. I would give a link to another
>> document clearly explaining how does it work with examples.
> In Notation3.html, it was too hard to find the link to a tutorial?

Notation3.html is not friendly at all ;) It's a suggestion to not  
scare the reader. Sincerely, I know a bit of N3 not everything, and I  
have always been unable to understand the Notation3 file. :) maybe  
I'm not the good public either.

> "Resources on Notation3 include the following:
>       * A primer for getting into RDF using N3
>       * A tutorial on treating Semantic Web data, taught using N3"

I haven't seen it. Sorry.
     * RDF Calendar
     then * notation 3
     then * Semantic Web Tutorial Using N3
     then * Rules and Formulae

ok let's try something. What about:

Notation 3, a compact and readable alternative to RDF's XML syntax,  
gives the possibility to write logical rules. We explored using rules  
to generate an RDF schema from our example data (A variable /var/ in  
Notation 3 is written with this syntax ?var.)

For example, rules such as

     "if something is related to semething else by ?P, then ?P is a  

can be expressed in Notation3 rule syntax:

     { [] ?P []. } => { ?P a r:Property }.

and in the same way

     "if something is a ?C, then ?C is a Class"

as, still in Notation3 rule syntax:

     { [] a ?C } => { ?C a s:Class }.

btw, there's another another typo:
     s/related to semething else/related to something else/

> As we said, their approach is "interesting". It's very handy in
> some ways, but yes, it perhaps abuses the markup. This does
> seem to be explicitly mentioned among hcalendar issues:
> [[
> The use of  for dates is incorrect. "August 5th, 2004" is not the
> abbreviation of 2004-09-05. In fact, the opposite is closer to the
> truth.
>       * REJECTED (false statement). This is simply a false statement.
>         See this article for an explanation of this use of <abbr>:  
> Human
>         vs. ISO8601 dates problem solved
> ]]
>  -- http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar-issues

Yes I know the answer to the issue. I'm not sure I agree with the  
rejection. but I might be wrong. Specifically when the answer to the  
issue is an article written by the person who's rejecting the issue,  
a bit circular and lacking of social consensus AND the article  
doesn't justify the rejection either.

But it's off topic. I hope I'll have the opportunity to discuss it  
with Tantek at the Tech Plenary.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2005 22:05:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:13 UTC