- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:12:33 +0200
- To: shane@aptest.com
- Cc: Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Just for the records on the mailing list... These are comments coming from Stefan Schumacher, not from me; I just forwarded them:-) Ivan On Apr 13, 2013, at 19:34 , Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote: > I have gone through your comments. Thanks so much for the feedback! My replies are in-line. An updated draft is available at http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html > > There are a couple of comments were I could use responses. > > Suggested Errata > for RDFa Core 1.1 > http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-rdfa-core-20120607 > Assumed Errors > Location in the document > Text in the current document. > Suggested text for errata. You might add this, but I don't think, it is necessary. (Omit me too, if you like.) > Comment. > Status of the document, first ol, first li > First list item is missing a "." at the end. > > Fixed > > Status of the document, to the end of the section > There is a more complete list of changes > There is a complete list of changes /or/ There is a list that describes more changes > If something is complete, it can not be more complete, otherwise it wouldn't have been complete before, so either it is a complete list, if all changes are covered, or it is a "longer" list if it is not complete/exhaustive. > > Changed. > > 3.2 Triples, first sentence > The first is the subject of the triple, and is what we are making our statements about. > The first is the subject of the triple, and is what we are making our statement about. > The texts speaks about THE triple, so it is only one statement, I would use the singular. > > Fixed. > > 3.3 IRI references, last paragraph, last sentence > <dfn title="iri-reference" id="T-iri-reference">IRI references.</dfn> > <dfn title="iri-reference" id="T-iri-reference">IRI references</dfn>. > The '.' at the end is inside of the dfn tag. On the other hand, the definition for IRI is not made in this document. Maybe use a different way to emphasize/mark up. > > Fixed punctuation. > > 4.2 RDFa Host Language Conformance, first li item, note > througout > throughout > Typo > > Fixed > > 4.2 und 4.3 > (W ... ). > (W ... .) > Full stop before ')', full sentence in (), so full stop inside (... .) > > Fixed > > 5.0 Attributes and Syntax, definition vocab > A IRI > an IRI > The 'a' or 'an' is in small letters elsewhere in the document. > > Fixed > > 7.3 Chaining, last paragraph before 7.4 > The subject for the 'German Empire' would remain Albert Einstein (and that would, of course, be an error). > The subject for 'the German Empire' would remain Albert Einstein (and that would, of course, be an error). > The subject for (the object) 'German Empire' ist Albert Einstein, the predicate is given via property="dbp:birhtplace". Wrong would be, if Albert Einstein would be the subject for the object 'the German Empire' with the property="dbp:conventionalLongName". I think, the apostroph needs to be shifted. > Actually there is only 'German_Empire' and 'the German Empire' in the example, so it should be precisely used like in the example to avoid confusion. The confusion starts in an example further above, where 'German Empire' is used for http://dbpedia.org/resource/German_Empire, so the reader might walk into this trap. Maybe it would be better to use dbr:German_Empire and dbr:Switzerland in all the explanations for the examples instead of the commonly associated names like German Empire and Switzerland and so on. > > Fixed the apostrophe > > 7.4.2, in the examples > ... an author might do this ... they would do this ... The author could ... > ... an author might do this ... the author would do this ... The author could ... > First example uses author, second example refers to the autor in first example, but uses they. I would keep it simple and either use author or authors throughout the document. Author is nice for translations, please, never change it to publisher like in other specs. > > Removed use of 'they' > > 7.5 Sequence, first note > ... bnode' It is ... > ... bnode'. It is ... > Missing '.' > > Fixed. > > 7.6.1, third paragraph > ... allow the developer, if they would ... > ... allow the developers, if they would ... > Similar like above with author. > > Fixed. > > 7.6.1, last paragraph > An web service ... > A web service ... > An to A > > Fixed. > > 7.6.1, last paragraph > ... allow the caller to specify if they ... > 1. ... allow the caller to specify if he/she ... > 2. ... allow the callers to specify if they ... > Similar like above. > > Fixed. > > 8.1.1.2, header for last example > which should generate the following triples: > which should generate the following triple: > Only one triple generated. > > Fixed. > > 8.1.1.4.1 > the first group are set to refer to the @about that contains them: > the statements in the first group refer to the (attribute) @about that contains them: > a group is, statements are. See next item also. > > Fixed. > > 8.1.1.4.1 > whilst the second group refer to the @resource that contains them: > whilst the statements of the second group refer to ... > Similar like above, a group refers, statements refer. > > Fixed. > > 8.2, to the end of the section > The entire set of triples that an RDFa Processor should generate are as follows: > The entire set of triples that an RDFa Processor should generate is as follows: > The entire set ... is, the 'are' problably derives from triples, in that case you could write something like: All triples that an RDFa processor should generate are as follows: > > Fixed. > > 8.3, last paragraph > A IRI resource object > An IRI resource object > A change to An > > Fixed. > > 8.3.1.3 XML Literals > an empty @datatype value can be used create a plain literal > an empty @datatype value can be used 'to' create a plain literal > 'to' missing > > Fixed. > > 8.3.1.3 XML Literals > Although the rendering of this page has highlighted the term the user searched for, setting @datatype to nothing ensures that the data is interpreted as a plain literal, giving the following triples: > 1. 'Rendering of this ...searched for. Setting ... *Skip 'Although', make two sentences.* > 2. setting @datatype to 'an empty string' > 3. ... giving the following 'triple'. *Only one triple in the example.* > > Fixed. > > 8.3.2 > <span>@typeof</span> > <span class="aref">@typeof</span> > The other attributes have the class 'aref', looks like it got lost here, so it has a different appearance in the document. > > Fixed. > > B.1 > foaf IRI > FOAF IRI > FOAF is otherwise used throughout the spec. > > Fixed. > > Location in the document > Text in the current document. > Suggested text for errata. You might add this, but I don't think, it is necessary. (Omit me too, if you like.) > Comment. > Suggested alternative text > Abstract > ... enabling structured search and sharing. > ... enabling structured search and sharing with the described RDFa information. > I was not sure if "structured" refers to sharing too. Structured sharing would mean to share things with the structure behind? I just cannot connect to "structured sharing". If structure is only referring to search, I would emphasize that it is sharing the picture with the RDFa information. > > I was afraid to mess with this. > > > 2. Syntax Overview, last NOTE > In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with fragment identifiers that are local to the document containing the RDFa fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). > In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with 'local' fragment identifiers (that point to items/fragments inside of the same document) (e.g., 'about="#me"'). > >From my point of view, the expanation of a local fragment identifier in the current version of the sentence makes more confusion than just saying, 'local' fragment indentifiers are used. That's it. The rest of the sentence is saying the same, but makes it confusing. > > This language came from the W3C TAG and I don't dare change it. > > > 3.2 > RDFa has complete support for internationalized characters. This includes internationalized characters in the subject, property and object location. > RDFa supports (all) internationalized characters for the subject, the 'predicate' and the object. > I would make the sentence short. Additionally use 'predicate' instead of 'property' to use one term throughout the spec only. The note above says, that property is suggested to replace predicate, but at present, predicate is the used term. > > Done > > 3.6, last paragraph > in reality > reality? any other word? actual processing? real processing environment? Any native english speaker please. > > Done > > 4.2 RDFa Host Language Conformance > All of the facilities required ... > All requirements of this specification have to be included ... > This is just a translator request, facilities can mean anything and is horrible to translate. > > This language is historical - facilities is a term of art in the standards industry. I don't have an appropriate substitution. > > 4.2, note > ... that are commonly used througout the Host Language. > ... that are commonly used throughout documents written in the Host Language. > > Changed to 'that are commonly used throughout the content model of the Host Language' > > . > 6. CURIE Syntax Definition > Otherwise, if a CURIE consists of a non-empty prefix and reference > Otherwise, if a CURIE consists of a non-empty prefix and a reference > In the first li, there is an a, in this one not, it could mean, that the reference is also not-empty. Might be better to keep it consistent with the first li. > > Fixed. > > 6., note, The production safe curie ... > cannot > must not > Is this cannot used in the meaning of 'should not' or 'must not'? > > Neither. This is not a conformance requirement. It literally means 'it is impossible for this to happen'. As in it is a logical impossibility. > > 7.2 and maybe other sections > during the course of processing > during/while processing > during or while already say it is between the start and the end of processing. This 'course' is 'extra' and it complicates the translation (just a little bit). > > This means 'things change over time'. It is a subtle but important concept. I am reluctant to change it > > 7.2, first list, last list item > a value to use as the prefix IRI when an undefined term > unprefixed term > ? > > No. What this means a term that is unknown to the processor. I made a change to clarify that. > > 7.5 > although the evaluation context used 'for each set of rules' will be based on previous rules that may have been applied. > 'every cycle/run through the set of rules' > (an evaluation context based on the resulting evaluation context from the last run will be used) > I would prefer, if it is clearer, that the processing rules are applied again and again for each element, and that the evaluation context normally changes after each run. My suggestion surely needs some proper english, I put that on you. :-) > > I appreciate that the language in this section is stilted. But it is actually the only important part of this document as far as I am concerned. I don't dare change any of the text without a full review by the working group. > > > 7.5, Rule 9, first blue box > If the element contains both the @inlist and the @rel attributes: ... > I would suggest a line break after the colon. Then indent the next line. > I think, that would make it easier to follow. > > Actually that colon should not have been there. I removed it. > > 7.5 source code of the steps > There is an HTML comment in the source code for almost every step, so you can find the steps faster, that stops after step 10. > Nice editing feature to have for all steps up to 14. Sorry for bringing in smallest things you can't even see in the browser view. > > Fixed. > > 7.6.1 > An web service RDFa Processor is defined as any RDFa Processor that is capable of processing a document 'by performing an HTTP GET, POST or similar action on an RDFa Processor IRI'. > no suggestion yet > What is an RDFa Processor IRI? > 1. The IRI where the RDFa Processor is located? Or > 2. the IRI that the Processor should look up and process? > I wouldn't call the second IRI 'RDFa Processor IRI' it is more an 'RDFa document IRI'. > I would say, an RDF processor is reachable under an 'RDFa Processor IRI'. > For my translation, it would be nice if I get a response to this issue. > > It is the IRI for an RDFa Processor - in other words, the address someone would use to query the processor via the web and extract triples from an RDFa document. > > And a typo: An web server to A web server > > Didn't find this one - must have been fixed earlier. > > 8.2, one of the examples > To illustrate, to indicate that Spinoza influenced > Sugestion 1: To indicate that Spinoza influenced > Suggestion 2: The following markup illustrates, how to indicate, that Spinoza ... . > 1: Remove 'To illustrate'. This is an example, examples are anyway 'to illustrate'. 'To illustrate, to indicate' makes the text less readable and more difficult to translate. Or better: > 2: merge the illustrate with markup from the end and have a nice flow of words. > > Fixed. > > 8.3 > A literal object can be set by using @property to express a predicate, and then using either @content, or the inline text of the element that @property is on. > A literal object can be set by @content or the inline text of the element, if @property is used to express a predicate. > 'Using @content' is not precise, say what @content and the inline text do: they provide the literal. > Little brainstorming: > In the actual version I just read 'a literal object can be set by using @property', I just ignore the rest, and my mind is fixed, that @property will set my literal. Ups. > So if you bring it ito some other order, it is easier to understand. > Further: > I think in the suggestion it is clear, that it is the element, that @property is on, that provides the literal (either through @content or inline text). So no need to explicitly say that (and make the sentence more complicated to understand). > > Made a change that helps. Some. > > 8.3, last paragraph > Alternatively, the @property can also be used to define an IRI resource, in the presence of an @href, @resource, or @src and in the absence ... . > Alternatively, @property can be used to define an IRI resource; this requires the presence of ... and requires the absence of ... . > This would give the sentence a sharper edge. > > Fixed. > > Skip 'the' before property, otherwise write it in full 'the attribute'. > Skip 'also', alternatively says that already. > Another idea would be to repeat, that @resource, @href, or @src are resource attributes (to burn it into the readers mind): > ... in the presence of one the resource attributes @resource, @href, or @src ... ; and keep this order like it is in section 5.1 for into-brain-burning. > > Fixed some. > > > 8.3.1.2 Typed Literals > The triples that this markup generates include the datatype ... > The triple that this markup generates includes the datatype ... > Just one triple is created in the example below. > > Fixed. > > 8.3.1.3 XML Literals > RDFa therefore supports the use of normal markup to express XML literals > none > What is normal markup? Could be more precise. > > Changed a bit. > > 8.4, before second example > RDF has a set of predefined predicates that have an agreed-upon semantics of order. > ... that follow (a) defined/given semantic(s?) of order. > 1. an ... semantics, either a semantic or just semantics, where I think singular is fine. > 2. agreed-upon, after you agreed upon that, you might have defined it, so it is given now? Make it easy to translate, please. :-) > 3. Do you really say semantics of order? > > I don't care touch this - anyone else have an opinion? > > 8.4 List Generation > the list is used with the common predicate with the common subject > the list is used with the common predicate and subject > If the suggestion is not fine, maybe an 'and' between 'with the common predicate (and) with the common subject' > > Fixed. > > 9, last note > entire note > ul > a nice list would make it better readable > > Fixed. > > 10.1.1 > Last paragraph ist not enclosed in p tag > p > Enclose it in a paragraph. > > Fixed. > > 10.1.1 > 1. RDFa-Vokabular-Entailment considers only the entailment on individuals > 2. not on the relationships that can be deduced on the properties or the classes themselves > none > 1. Individuals, what is that? Is there any precise RDFish term, that could be used? > 2. deduce on? Sorry, I don't understand, please help me translate. :-) > > I can't really comment on this. Anyone else? > > > Location in the document > For each IRI being the object of a triple in the output graph with the subject being the current document (base) IRI and the property being rdfa:usesVocabulary, that IRI is dereferenced. > If there are one or more triples in the output graph, that contain a subject being the current document (base), the property (better: predicate?) rdfa:usesVocabulary, and an object being an IRI, the IRI of each triple is dereferenced. > >From my point of view it is written a bit confusing, from the context it is clear, but the structure of the sentence doesn't support, that the subject and property are 'in the triple'. In the suggestion, the flow of the sentence brings up a triple, inside a subject, property (what could be also referred to as predicate to keep the spec in one voice), and object. Plain structure. > > I agree that this sentence is hard to parse. I have taken a shot at restructuring it. > > > 10.1 > Note that if, in the second step, a particular vocabulary is serialized in RDFa, that particular graph is not expected to undergo any vocabulary expansion on its own. > 1. graph replace with vocabulary graph > 2. see comment > How can a graph undergo something on its own, a graph is a file, not a processor, is there any detailed description with precise words for this whole sentence? > > A graph is a concept - not a file. > > Location in the document > Text in the current document. > Suggested text for errata. You might add this, but I don't think, it is necessary. (Omit me too, if you like.) > Comment. > General comments > Throughout the doc > production vs. definition > definition > In some parts of the document, production is used for definitions: > 'term ::= NCNameStartChar termChar*' > In 7.4.3 'definition' is used in a note for the same 'thing'. Is there anything, that would force the use of the term 'production' for this? Production is not nice to translate, and if it is in deed a definition, it would be nice to just call it definition. I'd like to see that in an editors guideline for the use of terms in all W3C specs. :-) Is there anything like that? > > 'Production' is a term of art. It is used in many W3C specs. We really should use it consistently. I changed 'definition' to production in one place. There is no other suitable term that I know of. Sorry. > > > Throughout the doc > entailment > no idea > Entailment is a pretty tough word, it can be used in different ways, the translation into German is a mess. Is there any other nice english word, that would do, is more precise and is expected to have a nice translation? > > Uggh. This is something from the Semantic Web community, and I can't speak to it. I don't think it has a translation that makes any sense I would honestly just use the word 'Entailment'. > > Throughout the examples > Sometimes there are '.' in the examples, after that the next sentence starts with a capital letter, sometimes no '.' and captital letters, sometimes small letters. > Try to keep it consistent. Either no '.' or put it everywhere. > > I assume you mean punctuation at the end of sentences. A more consistent style in examples would be nice. In some cases examples are literal data and it would be bad to change it. I will take a spin through > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 7 Apr 2013, at 03:21, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for this detailed list. I will take some time to look it over in the coming days. Manu and Ivan, I assume editorial changes like this are in scope? >> > > Yes. > > Ivan > > >> >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de> wrote: >> Hello RDFa Working Group, >> >> while translating the RDFa Core 1.1 spec, I found some things, that >> might need a look at. Mostly just small things. >> >> I attached an HTML file with all the suggestions I have. Ivan >> mentioned that there might be a PER coming for some RDFa specs, so >> this might help a bit. >> >> I am not sure, if the attachment is delivered properly, if not, >> please advise me, how to send the HTML file again. >> >> There are two questions inside, that would help my translation, so if >> I don't hear anything, I might bother you in a few days. >> >> So long >> Stefan >> >> >> >> -- >> Stefan Schumacher >> Lonavala, Maharashtra, India >> +91 9923670737 >> >> >> The following section of this message contains a file attachment >> prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. >> If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, >> you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. >> If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. >> >> ---- File information ----------- >> File: Suggested_Errata_RDFa_Core_1_1.html >> Date: 6 Apr 2013, 19:53 >> Size: 25921 bytes. >> Type: Unknown >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Shane P. McCarron >> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. > > > > -- > Shane P. McCarron > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. ---- 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
Received on Sunday, 14 April 2013 07:17:14 UTC