W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Review of latest RDFa Core 1.1

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 16:05:55 -0500
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <47968DB8-9D72-48FA-8D63-84DB895533C7@kellogg-assoc.com>
I've been doing my own review and updating my processor at the same time. Here are some of my notes:

Notes on review of 3/1 Editors Draft of RDFa Core 1.1: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview.html.

Section 4.1 RDFa Processor Conformance

Here it states that the processor *must* examine the media type and process the document as application/xml if it is unable to determine the media type. However, there is no description of how the processor should make this determination. Presumably, for a document retrieved over HTTP, the media type can be determined by examining the Content-Type header to determine this. However, what about documents not retrieved via a medium which reports Content-Type? For example, can a file extension be used to determine the media type of a file on a local file system (e.g., .html, .xhtml, .svg, etc.). I don't see that IANA defines associated file extensions for media types.

Is it acceptable to examine the root element name to determine the document type?

This section requires some clarification.

Section 6. CURIE Syntax Definition

Paragraph 3 describes the 'default prefix' mapping to be http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#. To me, this implies that the initial list of URI mappings (described in 7.5) contains such a mapping, however the text explicitly states that it is empty (or as defined in the RDFa Profile). Indeed, the XML RDFa Profile does contain this mapping, but what about host languages that don't use this profile? 4.3 XML+RDFa Document Conformance only applies to generic XML documents, and is integrated into XHTML+RDFa 1.1. Presumably, a host language could not include this definition, or any default profile. Should the language indicate that the initial set of uri mappings include XHV?

Otherwise, I think the changes make the document more accessible to people from outside the community. Good work.

Gregg

On Mar 5, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Hi Shane,
> 
> This is a review of the following document:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html
> 
> I did CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-S and did a diff-mark to view the differences. I am
> only looking at text that changed, I haven't looked at the other text in
> this review.
> 
>> 2. Syntax Overview 
>> One important thing: In RDF it ... examples (and
> 
> Nitpicky - this sounds strange to me, strike "One important thing"? The
> parenthetical statement is also complex - simplify the sentence via
> something like:
> 
> """
> In RDF, it is common for authors to shorten vocabulary terms via
> abbreviated URIs that use a 'prefix' and a 'reference'. This mechanism
> is explained in detail in the section titled "Compact URIs". The
> examples throughout this document assume that the following vocabulary
> prefixes have been defined:
> """
> 
>> Fragments are commonly used in RDF vocabularies as a way of singling
>> out a specific term in a document full of terms. However, you should
>> be aware that while this is a common practice, the exact meaning of
>> such URIs is not fully defined by the relevant internet standards
>> (e.g., [  URI  ]). Work on this is ongoing.
> 
> Minor fix-up:
> 
> Fragments are commonly used in RDF documents as a way of singling out a
> specific piece of structured data. While this approach is common
> practice, you should be aware that the exact meaning of such URIs is not
> fully defined by the relevant Internet standards (e.g., [URI]). There is
> work that is currently being performed by the Internet standards
> community to correct this oversight and a deeper explanation of this
> approach is expected to be published in the near future.
> 
>> 4.2 RDFa Host Language Conformance
>> The working group expects profiles..
> 
> "The Working Group expects default RDFa profiles to change ...."
> 
>> 4.3  XML+RDFa Document Conformance
> 
> Nice work, I love how simple this section is...
> 
>> CURIE vs. CURI
> 
> This has always bothered me, I know you don't want to change it, but I'd
> like "CURIE" to be written out in the document as "Compact URI
> Expression" not "Compact URI". At the moment, CURIE stands for "Compact
> URI" -> what's the extra "E" for? Is it silent? I realize that this is
> incredibly pedantic and bothers me more than it should.
> 
>> 7.5 Sequence
> 
> I'd love it if I could link to each step in the processing sequence. It
> helps when explaining RDFa to people to be able to point them to the
> exact section of the document that matters. I've found that when
> discussing the processing sequence, this is incredibly difficult to do
> and instead, I end up telling them go to Section 7.5, step #4 (or
> something to that effect). It would be much nicer to just be able to
> give them a link.
> 
>> 7.5 Sequence, Step #3
>> Values in this attribute are evaluated from beginning to end (e.g.,
>> left to right in typical documents).
> 
> I thought we settled on language that was not western-centric...
> something like "in document order" or something else that makes sense
> for traditional Japanese writing (top-down) or arabic (right-to-left).
> 
>> 7.6 Processor Status
> 
> I realize I wrote this section, but it's not as accurate as it should be:
> 
> ERROR should be replaced with rdfa:Error
> WARNING should be replaced with rdfa:Warning
> 
>> 7.6.2  Processor Graph Terms
> 
> The dcterms:date property should include seconds.
> 
> "2010-06-30T13:40:23"^^xsd:dateTime
> 
>> Literal object resolution
> 
> This graph makes me feel like RDFa is very complicated in this respect
> (resolving literals)... I know how we ended up here and don't think we
> should change anything - just reflecting on where we are. Seeing the
> complexity in visual form resonated with me. That said, it's good that
> we have the graph there - it does simplify how one understands what is
> going on.
> 
>> 9. RDFa Profiles
>> from beginning to end, which each separate URI evaluated
> 
> Typo? "which" -> "with"
> 
>> the referenced profile is considered to be not recognized
> 
> Why is the word "recognized" in bold? I'm assuming because it means
> something, but do we ever explain what "recognized" means to an RDFa
> Processor?
> 
>> @@@@@ the use of the word resource above might be a problem @@@@@
> 
> Yes, it struck me as strange as well. How about:
> 
> """
> For every subject with a pair of predicates that have the values
> "rdfa:prefix" and "rdfa:uri", create a key-value mapping from the
> "rdfa:prefix" object literal (the key) to the rdfa:uri object literal
> (the value).
> """
> 
>> B. The RDFa Vocabulary for Term and Prefix Assignments, and Processor
>> Graph Reporting
> 
> Why not just call this section "The RDFa Vocabulary"?
> 
>> B.2  Processor Graph Reporting
>> "The Vocabulary includes..."
> 
> It might be better to say "The RDFa Vocabulary includes...". I know it's
> in section B.2, but it seems strange to capitalize Vocabulary but not
> specify which vocabulary you're talking about.
> 
>> following term definitions
> 
> should probably say "the following triples"
> 
>> C.1 Major differences with RDFa Syntax 1.0
>> RDFa 1.0 processor vs. am RDFa 1.1
> 
> Typo - "am" -> "an"
> 
> That's all I could find - the changes look good, thanks for making all
> of them, Shane. :)
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Towards Universal Web Commerce
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/01/31/web-commerce/
> 
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 21:06:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:24 UTC