RE: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version

If each example in question is clearly marked as known to be incorrect
(with at least a pointer to some explanation), so that readers are not
tempted to naively mimic the examples, then I think I would be okay with
publishing.

BTW, Section 2 is a nice addition -- good narrative.  A couple editorial
things:

1. Sec 2.2.3 example is missing the foaf namespace declaration.

BTW, are all examples being tested by an RDF/A parser to verify the RDF
they produce?  For this draft I don't think it's essential, but I think
it should be done before the document is finalized, because machines
have a way of catching mistakes that human eyes miss. ;)

2. s/deparment/department/

David Booth


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Adida [mailto:ben@mit.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:31 PM
> To: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)
> Cc: SWBPD list; public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
> Subject: Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> I agree, I think we should mark the problems. I'd rather not try to
> rush the fixing of these problems, though, as I think they'll need  
> very careful editing. Assuming we do mark the problem carefully, do  
> you think the impact of section #2 is small enough to warrant moving  
> ahead?
> 
> -Ben
> 
> On Jan 24, 2006, at 3:48 PM, Booth, David (HP Software -
> Boston) wrote:
> 
> >
> > I hate to say this, but I think the URI identity issues
> that Alistair
> > raised in email[3] after yesterday's teleconference are important 
> > enough to delay publication until they are either fixed or visibly
> marked as
> > problems.  The WebArch document is clear that URI
> collisions[4] are A
> > Bad Thing.  It would seem wrong to endorse such collisions, even 
> > implicitly.
> >
> > David Booth
> >
> > [3] Identity issues raised by Alistair:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2006Jan/0113.html
> > [4] TAG's Web Architecture: 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#URI-collision
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
> >> [mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 12:03 PM
> >> To: SWBPD list
> >> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml task force
> >> Subject: [ALL] RDF/A Primer Version
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I made a mistake in the version of the RDF/A Primer that I
> presented
> >> at the telecon yesterday. I have just finished uploading the right
> >> version, which you can find here:
> >>
> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-24-rdfa-primer
> >>
> >> With the WG and specifically the reviewers' approval
> (DBooth, GaryNg,
> >> and also "unofficial" reviewers), I am hoping that we can rapidly 
> >> agree that this latest version should be the one that becomes our 
> >> first published WD.
> >>
> >> The only difference in content is that the new version has
> an extra
> >> section (section #2), and the old sections 2 and 3 are merged into
> >> the new section 3 for purely organizational purposes (no 
> text is lost
> >> or added in those sections, just reorganized.) The point of the new

> >> section 2 is to add an even simpler introductory example.
> We believe
> >> this additional section is in line with the comments we received 
> >> from reviewers, both official and earlier, unofficial reviews. In
> >> fact, we
> >> began writing it in part to respond to some of these early
> >> comments 2
> >> weeks ago.
> >>
> >> The already-approved version is still at the old URL for
> >> comparison:
> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-01-15-rdfa-primer
> >>
> >> I want to stress that this is entirely *my* mistake: the TF had
> >> agreed [1,2] that this second version would be presented to the WG 
> >> yesterday, and I simply forgot. Publishing these 
> additional examples
> >> now is quite important for getting the word out about RDF/A and
> >> making it competitive against other metadata inclusion proposals, 
> >> outside of W3C, that are gaining traction.
> >>
> >> Apologies for my mistake. I hope you'll see that these
> edits do not
> >> constitute a substantive change to the document, rather they help
> >> make the same points more appealing to and understandable 
> by a larger
> >> audience.
> >>
> >> -Ben Adida
> >> ben@mit.edu
> >>
> >> [1] Discussion during last segment of January 10th TF
> >> telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/10-swbp-minutes
> >>
> >> [2] Discussion, at beginning, of Mark's new examples
> during January
> >> 17th TF telecon: http://www.w3.org/2006/01/17-swbp-minutes
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2006 23:05:03 UTC