Re: RDFa Core editorial comments

On Mar 4, 2011, at 16:34 , Nathan wrote:

> Hi Shane, All,
> 
> next...
> 
> The example profile has had the @typeof's stripped again, Jeni's feedback was to change to typeof="rdfa:PrefixMapping", which was done, but now stripped - can we get this put back please :) - likewise th example which follows which introduce terms in profiles has typeof="" again.
> 

Ah. That was my making. In the latest version of the rdfa profile I did not have the PrefixMapping and TermMapping classes any more because, honestly, there isn't too much use for those anyway (we have also removed the range declarations). Which means of course that the only thing that one can use is the (obscure:-) typeof="".

But well. I have put these classes back. They do not harm...

Ivan

> 
> Section 3.
> 
>  However, what RDFa represents is RDF. In order to author RDFa you do
>  not need to understand RDF, although it would certainly help. However,
>  if you are building a system that consumes the RDF output of a
>  language that supports RDFa you will almost certainly need to
>  understand RDF.
> 
> pleaseeeee can we above that word represents, and also double use of However as an opener, consider:
> 
>  RDFa is short for RDF in Attributes. In order to author RDFa you do
>  not ...
> 
> 
> Section 4.2
> 
> s/default graphto/default graph to/
> 
> s/The processor graph term/The term processor graph/
> 
> s/that may be used by the RDFa Processor/that may be generated by the RDFa Processor/
> 
> 
> Section 6.
> 
>  This specification does not define a 'no prefix' mapping.
> 
> Can we have some text or a note in there to let people know that if they, or an RDFa host language, does define a 'no prefix' mapping, it'll effectively break their RDFa? (curies with no prefix mapping in about issue). Likewise for the text under "In RDFa these values are defined as follows:", remembering that the "no prefix" mapping != the default vocabulary mapping. We can't have implementers confusing the two, or even using 'no prefix'.
> 
> Section 6.1
> 
> Three mentions of "IRIs", should probably be "URIs", section 6 already clarifies they are also valid IRIs, thus the text can be confusing "compact URIs expends to IRIs" etc.
> 
> 
> and.. that's it. I skipped section 7 in detail (need to implement for proper feedback) and the rest looks fine!
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf