- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:08:25 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 23 Aug 2010, at 12:17, Ivan Herman wrote: > I have tried to come up, therefore, with an alternative text to the > current description of profile files in the document, ie, section > 9[4]. I have put an alternative text to the Wiki[5]; it would be > nice if you guys could look at the text to see if it is all right as > an alternative or not. We could then try to close this issue on one > of our forthcoming telcos. (Note that the examples and the official > XHTML profile file would have to be rewritten, too, but that becomes > easy.) > > Thoughts? Some comments on [5]: 1. For clarity, I would re-order the sentences in the first paragraph: “Profiles are external documents ... They are referenced via @profile ... They must be defined in an approved host language ...” 2. “They may also be defined in other RDF serializations as well” -- What's the intent here? That such other serializations are provided as alternatives via content negotiation? 3. The Note about “triples must not be co-mingled” seems to be unnecessary now, the language in the following points makes it sufficiently clear IMO. 4. Personally I wouldn't mind if the current, literal-based method for establishing *prefix* mappings stayed. That being said ... 5. “If another triple using the rdfa:prefix predicate is present in the profile graph with either the same subject or the same object, disregard this mapping.” The mapping should just be disregarded if another same *subject* is present. There is no problem with associating the same URI with multiple prefixes. 6. Likewise for term mappings. 7. Can you give an example for the intended use of rdfa:vocabulary? I don't understand it. 8. The processing rules for the case that a profile document is unavailable are unclear to me. Here it simply says, “skip and continue with the next profile URI”. Elsewhere (7.5) it says: “If any referenced RDFa Profile is not available, then the current element and its children must not place any triples in the default graph.” And (7.6): “An ERROR must be generated when an RDFa Profile document fails to be retrieved and thus, a portion of the document fails to be processed.” I don't understand why processing of profile documents continues if no triples will be generated from the subtree. 9. The Note at the end of the proposed text seems to state an exception to the earlier statement: “... parse the retrieved content as an RDFa document ...”. Maybe the Note can be converted into a qualifying statement on that sentence? “... parse the retrieved content as an RDFa document, except that any @profile within the content is ignored ...”? 10. There should be a sub-section on default profiles. Best, Richard > [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100803/#s_profiles > [5] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/ProfileSpec
Received on Monday, 23 August 2010 12:09:23 UTC