- From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:33:21 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, public-grddl-wg <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>
I'm fine with it, as in I will not block it going as a working draft. This is despite the fact there has been not been too much of a substantial improvement to the XFN component that I can tell, although the work on the rest of it has been very admirable!! The second part of the primer is still a bit rough. For example, there are ungrammatical sentences: "Stephan wishes to buy a guitar, so decides to check reviews" -> "Stephan wishes to buy a guitar, so _he_ decides to check reviews" And "The power of the rel="me" and" -> The power of the <code>rel="me"</code> to maintain consistency with the first part. I pointed this all out a few days ago in my review of the Primer [1], but it appears that Ian didn't approve or didn't have time to put in all my suggested edits. However, I do suggest that at the first available opportunity these be fixed and XFN be explained more clearly with example files. [1]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-grddl-wg/2006Sep/0164.html Dan Connolly wrote: > Chime, Harry, > > Ian has run out of time for the week... > > <iand> v 1.4 is in cvs > <DanC> does 1.4 include an attempt at XFN? > <iand> no. > <DanC> ah. hm. > <DanC> I'll try to get Chime's OK without it. > <iand> ok, thanks. i have to dash! > > Would you please take a look at > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/grddl29/ > > and let us know if you can OK what's there about XFN? > > I'm having plenty of doubts of my own about whether I can > get this WD out today. I'm re-discovering all sorts of > W3C patent policy stuff etc. that's between us and publication. > > So if you give a thumbs-down, it won't be the only reason > we don't ship. But it may be a two week slip, not just one, > since I'm out of town next week. > > I sorta have an OK from Harry... > > <HarryH> I was hoping to sit down and crank out some example files for > the primer, but won' t have time till next week. > <HarryH> Working drafts don't have to be perfect, I just want it to be > *good* :) > <HarryH> And I've never got any RDF->XFN identity consolidation stuff > ever working, so I'd need someone to give me pointers to write example > files and help with the primer. > <HarryH> XFN->RDF > <DanC> RDF->XFN identity is so easy... I just need another pair of > hands... > <DanC> have you seen my original "XFN on the GRDDL" message from umpteen > years ago? > <DanC> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Jan/0014.html > <DanC> ok, truth be told, I haven't worked thru the details of the more > recent XFN identity stuff. but it looks really easy. > <DanC> we could work toward a cwm proof of cross-site identity ;-) > <-- iand has quit (Ping timeout) > <HarryH> No, hadn't seen that message before! > <HarryH> I should get on that listserv.. > <HarryH> Hmmm...I've also noticed some of my grammatical changes haven't > been checked into the primer. > <HarryH> Things like missing subjects of a few sentences. > <HarryH> OK - I feel guilty. I'll go and work on the Primer example > files now... > <HarryH> And will shoot the results off to the list in a few hours. > However, I'm OK with them not appearing in the WD. > <DanC> re grammatical changes, I'm standing by for an update from Ian > <HarryH> OK will work on getting example files together for Brian's XFN > bit. > <HarryH> However, again - just ship it whenever you're happy with it. > > > On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 12:55 -0400, Chimezie Ogbuji wrote: > [...] > >> (Buying a Guitar Example) >> >> Use usecase titles instead of use case #3 >> >> "Given a seed URL with XFN data, .." => "Given an XHTML document with XFN .." >> >> "That FoaF file .." => "The extracted foaf <rdf graph|descriptions> .." >> >> I wasn't able to follow specific parts of this example. In particular, >> it wasn't clear how the FOAF descriptions gleaned from XFN would >> facilitate spidering for additional GRDDL source documents. It seemed a >> bit out of place and could either use a short paragraph on RDF spidering >> or should be left out if it's not essential to the GRDDL-specific aspects >> of the example. >> >> In addition, the section on identity consolidation via rel="me" was >> unclear to me. I think a diagram identifying >> these connections between the the source data, and the resulting RDF descriptions >> would make this much clearer and is essential for this example especially. >> > > -- -harry Harry Halpin, University of Edinburgh http://www.ibiblio.org/hhalpin 6B522426
Received on Friday, 29 September 2006 19:33:38 UTC