Re: Updated RDFa 1.1 Core editor's draft

Grant,

some of the answers here... thanks for your thorough review!

On Apr 6, 2012, at 08:03 , Grant Robertson wrote:

> A) Where can I see ISSUE-133?
> 

This is the WG operational jargon:-)

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/133

> B) Again, I can only compare this document to the one posted at
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-rdfa-core-20120313/. However, it appears that
> the big changes in this document are the addition of @about and (if in
> <root> : [base]) as possibilities in Section 7.5, Step 5.1, for when
> {@typeof}. Is this correct?
> 

Yes

> C) The effect of this change seems to be as follows:
> 
> C.1) In the previous version the only difference between what I call "{@rel
> | @rev} Mode" and "Special Property Mode" was that, in the latter, a new
> bNode could be created for use as a [typed resource] regardless of {@about}
> (see my table at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/att-0013/RDFa_Sub
> ject-Object_Variables_Determination.pdf in footnotes 6 and 9.).
> 
> C.2) In this version:
> 
> C.2.a) In "Special Property Mode," a new bNode cannot be created for use as
> a [typed resource] if {@about} simply because @about is earlier in the list
> of possibilities. So this behavior now matches the behavior when in "{@rel |
> @rev} Mode," though via a different algorithm.
> 

Yes

> C.2.b) However, now - when in "Special Property Mode" - it is entirely
> possible for [current object resource] to be set to *@about because @about
> is now in the list of possibilities for assignment to [typed resource] ...
> AND ... [current object resource] is set to the value of [typed resource]
> after all is said and done. Is this the intention? Did you really mean to
> create a situation wherein it is possible for [current object resource] ==
> *@about? In fact, this creates two situations wherein [new subject] ==
> [current object resource]. Is that the intention? Except for some very
> special situations (such as: <myprefix:Grant> foaf:knows <myprefix:Grant>.),
> this could lead to some very confusing triples.

No... The assignment to current object resource occurs only in the 'otherwise' branch of the processing step. 

> 
> C.2.c) Also, - when in "Special Property Mode" - it is now possible for
> [typed resource] to be set to [base], which is impossible in "{@rel | @rev}
> Mode." Is this the intention? What would be the purpose of this difference?
> 

I am not sure what you mean. In both cases the value of @about is done through the CURIE and IRI processing, which may include base

Ivan


> 
> D) If the actual intention was to make it so that the final values for [new
> subject], [current object resource], and [typed resource] come out the same
> for both modes: "{@rel | @rev} Mode" and "Special Property Mode," then why
> didn't you just write the algorithm to say, "If {@rel | @rev} OR (!{@rel |
> @rev} BUT ({@property} & !{@content | @datatype})) THEN DO X, Y, & Z (or
> simply copy and paste one algorithm to two places in the document) rather
> than make up these similar but different algorithms?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that, if the desired result was to allow for a special use of
> @property wherein it worked exactly the same as @rel, then 1) you have gone
> a very long and circuitous route to - almost but not quite - get there, and
> 2) I really don't see the point. If the desired goal is to make @property
> work exactly the same as @rel except you wanted to allow [current object
> resource] == [new subject] then I REALLY don't see the point. Pardon me for
> being blunt. Perhaps I would understand better if I knew what the end goal
> of this whole "Special Property Mode" was, in plain English.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Grant
> 
> P.S. As defined in my "Subject-Object Determination Table" (at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Apr/att-0013/RDFa_Sub
> ject-Object_Variables_Determination.pdf), "Special Property Mode" is nothing
> more than the special situation wherein !{@rel | @rev} BUT ({@property} &
> !{@content | @datatype}) that the algorithm gets to in Section 7.5, Step
> 5.1. If you give a concept or situation a name then it is easier for people
> to talk about.
> 
> P.P.S. Oh yeah, "if in <root> : [base]" is just a shorter, more direct way
> of saying "if the element is the root element of the document, then act as
> if there is an empty @about present, and process it according to the rule
> for @about, above." 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
>> ...
>> I have updated the 
>> editor's draft of the RDFa 1.1 Core:
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html
>> that reflects the changes necessary to solve ISSUE-133
>> The changes are in section 7.5, step 5.
> 
> 


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