Re: RDFa review ... too late, but maybe still helpful for the group

My comments are in line.  Mark, there is an item in here that we really 
need your input to react to.  I know you are buried, but 5 minutes would 
be really helpful.

Ben Adida wrote:
> Hey folks,
>
> Thanks for your review!
>
> A few comments below in response to your questions. Mark, Shane, and
> Steven might chime in to enhance the response :)
>
> We'll do our best to incorporate as much as we can here, though we are
> on a tight deadline to publish. Comments below.
>
>
>   
>> The inconsistent specification of the CURIE syntax is the main critical
>> question we have, which occurs in more than one section.  The main
>> question is whether a CURIE must contain a colon, or need not.  The
>> formal syntax definition in section 7 says
>>
>>     
>>> curie       :=   [ [ prefix ] ':' ] reference
>>>       
>> but the definition of the XML Schema datatype in appendix B.1 does not
>> reflect the fact that the colon can be missing:
>>
>>     
>>> <xs:simpleType name="CURIE">
>>>     <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>>>       <xs:pattern value="[\i-[:]][\c-[:]]*:.+" />
>>>     </xs:restriction>
>>> </xs:simpleType>
>>>       
>
> Good point about the inconsistency, we'll be clearer about that. A valid
> CURIE need not have a colon, but CURIEs in @rel/@rev *do* need a colon,
> and that is indeed an intended design tidbit: we don't want rel="foobar"
> to mean something by default, but we *do* want rel="next" to mean what
> it has always meant.
>   
This was actually already corrected.  The XSD now matches the BNF.  And 
yes, this means that rel="foobar" is syntactically valid were the 
definition of @rel to use that datatype.  It will not when we have an 
XML Schema implementation of RDFa+XHTML - @rel and @rev will have a 
custom datatype that contains the reserved values.
>>> @rel and @rev support both XHTML link types and CURIEs
>>>       
>> If XHTML link types like "next" turn out to be CURIEs, this will have to be
>> rephrased.
>>     
>
> We could say "prefixed CURIEs," but I'll let Mark and Shane explain further.
>   
"next" is syntactically legal as a CURIE.  However, section 7 says "the 
*mapping to use when there is no prefix* is not defined, which 
effectively prohibits the use of CURIEs that do not contain a colon;"  
This means that within the context of RDFa+XHTML "next" is NOT permitted.
>>  So if redefining the default namespace does not have any impact on the URI prefix
>> mapping that is relevant for CURIEs, this should be explained by a
>> dedicated example.
>>     
>
> We might make it a dedicated test case, although I could have sworn we
> had one (but I can't find it yet). I don't think we'll change language
> at this point, as this has not been an issue so far. Mark, Shane, feel
> free to correct me.
>   
Every test case defines a default namespace that never has an effect on 
the generated triples.
>> == 5.5 Sequence ==
>>
>>     
>>> 9. . the actual literal value is obtained as follows:
>>> * as a [typed literal] if:
>>>   * @datatype is present, and does not have an empty value
>>>       
>> Note that this condition covers the case @datatype=rdf:XMLLiteral, so it
>> should be changed to: "does not have an empty value, nor the value
>> XMLLiteral"
>>     
>
> I think technically that's covered by the other condition matching, but
> you're right that this would help clarify things and be more precise.
>   
This is probably correct, but I am reluctant to make this change without 
Mark's agreement and explicit wording.
>   
>> ==== 6.1.1.3 Using @src ====
>>
>>     
>>> The complete mark-up yields three triples:
>>> ...
>>> <photo1.jpg> xh:license <http://...> .
>>>       
>> xhv is the correct prefix.
>>     
>
> Good catch!
>   

Fixed.  Thanks!

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 02:52:39 UTC