- From: Danny Ayers <da@talisplatform.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:08:56 +0000
- To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
- Cc: "Ian Davis" <ian.davis@talis.com>
- Message-ID: <4d15cc0c0809100608x49d19738sca327b7b678685e8@mail.gmail.com>
While I work for a member company (Talis), the opinions below are my own, though I suspect the summary at least will coincide with that of the company rep (cc'd). Hope you can make sense of my plain-text markup, sections: Summary, General Points, Substantive Points, Editorial, Nitpicking *** Summary *** While I believe the document likely contains all the information necessary to use RDFa I can't tell for sure. The way it's currently organized leads me to suggest it needs one or two more revisions before proceeding any further. IMHO it could use compressing, making more formal, and significant chunks moving to other docs - some of the informative bits to the primer, the CURIE def to another spec. Pragmatically, as it stands I suspect most publishers/consumers & parser authors will simply get confused. *** General Points *** a large proportion of this doc is informative (and a lot of small sections gives the impression of it being piecemeal, rather than a coherent spec) I think it would allow more flexibility in future spec creation if CURIES were defined in an independent spec while Relax NG might not be as widely adopted as DTDs, for the purposes of a specification like this, such a description would be a lot more helpful than the DTDs the distinction rendered data vs. structured data doesn't seem clear how does a parser distinguish between intentional RDFa and HTML tag soup? *** Substantive Points *** * How to Read this Document * "...authors don't need to understand RDF to use it" While I appreciate the intent, I believe this statement to be wrong - accurate communication (of data) requires both the producer and consumer to understand the language. Suggest rewording to something along the lines of: "...authors don't need complete understanding of RDF to use it" * 3.1. Statements * "A statement is a basic unit of information that has been constructed in a specific format to make it easier to process" ew. * 3.7. Graphs appears unfinished... * 4.1. Document Conformance * This seems a bit messy both substantively & editorially. For starters, where is @version in the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace? * 4.3. RDFa Processor Conformance * "A conforming RDFa Processor MAY make available additional triples that have been generated using rules not described here, but these triples MUST NOT be made available in the [default graph]. (Whether these additional triples are made available in one or more additional [RDF graph]s is implementation-specific, and therefore not defined here.)" This seems over-constrained. If I have a doc which contains RDFa plus GRDDL plus [something not yet defined] RDF-in-HTML data, I would expect them to at least be able to be interpreted as a single graph. i.e. the graph scope should be the document, not the RDFa processor's interpretation. (That's assuming "default graph" is meant to mean what I think - it's not defined here as far as I can see). I don't see how Appendix C. Deployment Advice fits in here either. * 5.2. Evaluation Context * This section seems loosely defined for normative material. I don't think it'd take much effort to tie it to the XML DOM, in a similar fashion to 5.5. Sequence (SAX). Use of [] on the CURIE attributes seems inconsistent. // here I got lost * 9.3. @rel/@rev attribute values * unnecessary repetion of HTML defs - a single example would do (i.e. rel="cite") *** Editorial *** various places: mark-up => markup * 2.1. The RDFa Attributes * the "X in RDF terminology" bits should perhaps be linked to corresponding places in the RDF Primer * 3. RDF Terminology * Sytax => Syntax There are a few unfulfilled refs like <em>[triples]</em> In the informative sections, it may be more reader-friendly to use 'property' rather than 'predicate'. consider merging 3.1 Statements with 3.2 Triples *** Nitpicking *** * Abstract * "The modern Web is made up of an enormous number of documents that have been created using HTML." => "The current Web is primarily made up of an enormous number of documents that have been created using HTML." ---- "RDFa is a specification for attributes to express structured data in any markup language." Is RDFa specified for any language other than XHTML? Where? ---- "rendered data can be copied and pasted along with its relevant structure" Yuck, something more like this seems more appropriate: "rendered data can be manipulated and reused along with its relevant structure" ---- * Motivation * "RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX] provides sufficient flexibility to represent all of the abstract concepts in RDF [RDF-CONCEPTS]." - with certain limitations, e.g. properties which can't be expressed as qnames can't be serialized as RDF/XML, e.g. http://example.com/1234 ---- 'hard-wired' - not sure everyone will understand, anyone got a synonym?
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 15:24:26 UTC