- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 17:03:29 +0200
- To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Guys, based on the comments of the other day, I have made a pretty major overhaul of the RDFa 1.1 primer, see http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/ The goal, if you remember, was to put the vocab feature to the fore, and push the prefix possibilities a little bit into the background. That is essentially what I did; however, this created a cascade of changes, it was not only a simple reshuffling of the paragraphs. Indeed, the previous version of the Primer was based on the Open Graph Protocol of Facebook. Of course, it would have been possible to turn that around with vocab but, as we know, Facebook only recognizes the prefixed version, ie, og:title and friends. I think it would be really bad to use this example with vocab, knowing that nobody would ever use that in practice because that is not what Facebook recognizes. This meant that I had to redo all the examples, and I used, primarily, the Dublin Core properties as a primary vocabulary. I also added a separate section on multiple vocabularies, where I introduce prefixes; to make that part of the message even stronger, I also added some SIOC terms to the example (ie, to have an example using many different vocabularies). As an independent issue, I have also added a separate section on the usage of @resource. The recent discussion around @itemref, and the examples given by Stéphane and Lin Clark on how @itemref is used in the Drupal+microdata version and, more importantly, how the very same example can be encoded in RDFa using @resource and @about shows that the @resource-@about pattern is very important in practice. Ie, having a separate section on that is really good, so I added one. As I said, this meant a major reshuffle of sections, change of examples, diagrams, etc. In other words, all kinds of error prone operations. I would really appreciate if some of you guys read the text and listed the bugs, misspellings, etc, that are undoubtedly there... *If* we have lists in RDFa, I think a separate section on them (in the advanced features) would be worth adding. There is nothing at the moment on datatypes; I am not sure it is really necessary but maybe it is... Other than that, I feel that the primer is in a pretty good shape (modulo the problems you guys may still find). Thanks Ivan P.S. I have also recoded the http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-primer/alice-example.html file and generated a static turtle file for it, instead of a call to the distiller ---- 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
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 15:03:29 UTC