Re: Responses to 2nd round of comments on RDFa Syntax by Diego

Manu,

I'm pleased to know that I'm in sync with Ivan :) Unfortunately, I
missed his email, otherwise I wouldn't have raised similar issues.

I consider my last two comments have been properly addressed, so I'm
happy to greenlit the latest draft. Thank you for all the efforts put to
answer the reviewers' comments.

Cheers,

El lun, 18-02-2008 a las 17:40 -0500, Manu Sporny escribió:
> Diego Berrueta Muñoz wrote:
> > Hi Manu. Sorry for taking a while to reply, I've been double-checking
> > the new rules.
> 
> No problem, all of us appreciate that fact that you keep reviewing and
> re-reviewing the changes.
> 
> > I'm happy with the changes made in response to my two 2nd round
> > comments. In particular, the text added in response to the second one is
> > very welcome!
> 
> Glad you like the changes so far :)
> 
> > However, I've just discovered two new potential issues, so I'm afraid I
> > have to raise two new comments:
> > 
> > 1) Consider the following markup:
> > 
> > <div about="#Chema">
> >    <ul rel="foaf:knows">
> >       <li about="#Diego">...</li>
> >    </ul>
> > </div>
> > 
> > I think the code above produces the following triple:
> > 
> > <#Chema> foaf:knows [_:a]
> > 
> > while the expected outcome should probably be the following:
> > 
> > <#Chema> foaf:knows <#Diego>
> > 
> > I think the problem lives in the wording of the final part of Rule 5.
> > When the [current element] is the <ul> element, Rule 5 is fired. The
> > last branch of the fall-through cases for [current object resource]
> > within this rule creates a new bnode for this variable. Immediately,
> > Rule 7 creates the triple. Note that Rule 8 is never fired (because
> > [current object resource] is a bnode, not null), and therefore, no
> > incomplete triple is ever generated.
> > 
> > I admit that I may be wrong, because I've traced the execution by hand,
> > so I would appreciate if someone could repeat the trace to confirm the
> > issue.
> 
> You're quite correct. There was a bug in the processing rules that
> caused the 8th rule to not fire. This has been corrected in the latest
> Last Call-ready draft by fixing Step #5. Note that the rule at the end
> of Step #5 that caused [current object resource] to be set to a non-null
> value has been removed. By removing this step, we ensure that the list
> of incomplete triples can be created correctly.
> 
> Please note the changes in Step #5:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/rdfa-syntax-diff.html#sec_5.5.
> 
> > 2) I think the list of incomplete triples is not properly propagated
> > down the tree. Consider the following markup:
> > 
> > <div about="#Chema">
> >    <ul rel="foaf:knows">
> >       <li>
> >          <span about="#Diego">...</span>
> >       </li>
> >    </ul>
> > </div>
> > 
> > When the processing descends to the <li> element, the [evaluation
> > context] should contain an incomplete triple (#Chema, foaf:knows, ??).
> > The [local list of incomplete triples] is then initialized to null by
> > Rule 1. No other rule is fired for the <li> element, except for the
> > recursive rule (Rule 10). At this point, a new [evaluation context] is
> > created for the child <span>, and the [list of incomplete rules] of this
> > new context is initialized to the value of [local list of incomplete
> > triples], which is null. Therefore, when the third component of the
> > triple is discovered (while processing the <span>), the first two
> > components are not available anymore, and the triple cannot be completed.
> > 
> > As before, this may be an error in my trace and not an actual error in
> > the rules, so please repeat the experiment before making any changes to
> > the document.
> 
> Correct again. This issue has been addressed by creating a [skip element
> flag]. If the [skip element flag] is set to 'true', then the [list of
> incomplete triples] is propagated down the tree when processing (note
> that xml:lang and xmlns are still processed as well).
> 
> Please note the changes in Step #1, Step #4, Step #11, and Step #12.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080218/rdfa-syntax-diff.html#sec_5.5.
> 
> -- manu

-- 
Diego Berrueta
R&D Department  -  CTIC Foundation
E-mail: diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org
Phone: +34 984 29 12 12
Parque Científico Tecnológico Gijón-Asturias-Spain
www.fundacionctic.org

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 08:24:56 UTC