- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:49:14 -0500
- To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I spent a little time sifting through the current source repository version (as opposed to a specific snapshot). Here are my basic technical concerns: 1. Rather than defer to RDF-CONCEPTS for the definition of a language tag, I think we should refer to IETF BCP 47 - that's what the I18N WG likes people to use these days. 2. I assume that the designation of BlankNodes are constant for the lifetime of a specific document instance. In otherwords, if I process a page and start using it, depending upon blank node names like '_:123' , that designator will refer to the same node at least until the next time the page is processed. We should make this explicit if it is true. 3. PlainLiteral and TypedLiteral return both a Node (in element) and the Node contents (in value). RDFa requires that value of a Literal be extracted in a pretty special way. We should probably indicate that the 'value' reflects the result of extracting the Literal from the DOM. In other words, that it is very different than just looking at the content of the Node reflected by element. 4. Rather than defer to RDF-CONCEPTS for the definition of URI, I think we should refer to the IRI (RFC 3987) specification. The algorithm described in RDF-CONCEPTS is nice, but it could conflict with IRI and IRI is what RDFa Core refers to. 5. I confess that I don't understand the URI Mapping stuff. In RDFa URI mappings are done in the context of a Node. It doesn't make any sense to me to have a global mapping class. I know that people don't generally override the mappings throughout a document, but still... they could, and I don't see what value having global mappings has? 6. RDFTriple has a complex constructor definition. However, what I don't see in there is the ability to use a BlankNode as a predicate. Within the context of a single document, I think it is perfectly reasonable to define a hybrid type as a BlankNode and then cite it as a predicate for other triples. Isn't it? 7. In the RDF Triple Iterator, if I specify a root attribute that is some Node in the tree, and the triples in that hierarchy refer to other triples outside of the hierarchy... I assume its all fine, but it is not clear to me how I would follow that chain. 8. RDF Triple Projection: First, the title of section 2.7 needs spaces in it to be consistent with the rest of the document. Second, and this might be a global comment, the use of the RDF term 'object' is confusing when it is comingled with the programming term 'Object' as used in WebIDL. I don't know how to fix it. But it is confusing. 9. In section 3.2 and 3.3, the predicate in the various method is limited to a URI. Can't it also be a bnode (see above)? Also, and I know this contradicts what I said above about prefix mappings, it would be nice to be able to filter using CURIEs as well as URIs. Probably more to follow as I attempt an implementation (in Perl!). -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Monday, 26 April 2010 16:49:50 UTC