Re: LC comments on RDFa Core 1.1

> This is a DRAFT reply to Michael on his (editorial) last call comments.
> If there are no objections, I will send this on as our formal response.

Without wanting to pre-empt the formal response, I'm more than happy with
the answer and thank the team for their efforts. Please consider my
editorial LC comments addressed hereby.

Cheers,
      Michael

-- 
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html



> From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 09:14:49 -0600
> To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: LC comments on RDFa Core 1.1
> Resent-From: <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 15:18:22 +0000
> 
> This is a DRAFT reply to Michael on his (editorial) last call comments.
> If there are no objections, I will send this on as our formal response.
> 
> On 12/5/2010 12:00 PM, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
>> All,
>> 
>> I promised Manu feedback on RDFa Core 1.1 LC [1] and you can believe me that
>> I tried very hard to find major issues but failed (which is not surprising
>> given the long and hard work on this document ;)
>> 
>> So, overall the document reads very good and I think it is CR/PR ready. Some
>> minor comments, though, you might want to consider addressing:
>> 
>> + Section "6. CURIE Syntax Definition": I think the second paragraph would
>> benefit from a rewording. The usage of '' and sentences such as "This
>> specification does not define a default 'no prefix' mapping." are somewhat
>> hard to digest. Further, the last paragraph:
>> 
>> [[
>> Note that the resulting URI must be a syntactically valid IRI [RFC3987
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20101026/#bib-RFC3987>  ]. For a more
>> detailed explanation see CURIE and URI Processing
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20101026/#s_curieprocessing>  . Also
>> note that while the lexical space of a CURIE is as defined in curie
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20101026/#P_curie>   above, the value
>> space is the set of IRIs.
>> ]]
>> 
>> ... should, IMHO be at the very beginning of this section.
> 
> I have moved this toward the top of the section - after the introductory
> paragraph.
> 
>> + The Section "7.5 Sequence" says: "This specification defines processing
>> rules for optional  attributes that may not be present in all Host Languages
>> (e.g., @href)." -->  I'd love to see a list of optional attribs somewhere in
>> the document (did I overlook this?)
> 
> The list of attributes is defined in section 5 (Attributes and Syntax).
> This section identifies a few attributes as optional.
> 
>> + IMHO, Section "8.3 Object resolution" would benefit from an overview
>> figure explaining the types of objects (you could reuse the "Diagram of RDF
>> Classes, Attributes, Methods and linkages." [2]).
> 
> We are going to add a diagram (Ivan?)
> 
> 
>> Congrats to the editors and the entire WG for this solid work - looking
>> forward to see the REC!
>> 
>> Cheers,
>>        Michael
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20101026/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-api/#the-rdf-interfaces
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 18 January 2011 15:22:39 UTC