Re: RDFa Primer -- some comments

Roland,

Thanks for your comments on the Primer!

> 2.1 Licensing your Work
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/#IDA1FX3C
> 
> includes the following example 
> ...
> All content on this site is licensed under a
> <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">
>     Creative Commons License
> </a>.
> 
> but the image shows something different: 
>   distributed under 
>   a Creative Commons License

diagram fixed.

> 2.3 Multiple Items per Page
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/primer/20080422/#IDAAZX3C
> 
> in the previous section you introduced "@property, a new HTML attribute 
> introduced by RDFa"

The simplest way to fix this was to change the above to "an attribute 
introduced by RDFa," which is what I did.

> what does the example -- about="/posts/trouble_with_bob" -- actually refer 
> to? Looks like a relative reference, but relative to what? Same for -- 
> about="/posts/jos_barbecue" -- 

I've added a bit of an explanation before the first @about.

> Why not start with the absolute example and then illustrate a relative 
> one?

I'd rather not change the document structure at this point. I'm hoping 
that I don't have to explain relative URLs to HTML authors :)

> You state: . . . This node has no URL to identify it, so it is called a 
> blank node.
> 
> Nowhere in the earlier sections is there a definition of what constitutes 
> a node which makes the introduction of a new "kind" of node, a "blank 
> node", tricky.

Maybe you were reading a previous version? The diagram in Section 2.1 
talks about a "web page as a node," and Section 3 also mentions nodes.

> One example includes 
> <div class="social-network" about="#me" rel="foaf:knows">
> 
> where is there something that establishes the connection between #me and 
> http://example.com/alice#me.

I think this is the idea of a relative URL, which should be clear for 
most HTML authors. Hopefully, the small tweak I made above from your 
earlier comment will further help this.

Thanks again!

-Ben

Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 17:45:32 UTC