Re: Suggestions for Errata RDFa Core 1.1

Some more comments in-line


On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 3:52 AM, Stefan Schumacher <stefan@duckflight.de>wrote:

> Hello Shane,
>
> thanks for your fast work and your comments.
>
> I still have some comments on the earlier suggestions, I cut out the
> fixed things, so the quoted list below is much shorter now.
> I kept the open issues, where you asked for input from the WG.
>
> I have two more new things, that I discovered while proof reading my
> translation. They are kind of connected.
>
> 7.2 Evaluation context, second list, item 5
> ---
> now:
> ... new subject value, which once calculated will set the parent
> subject 'property'...
> ---
> suggestion:
> ... set the value for the parent subject
> ---
> comment:
> The use of the word 'property' is my concern. Property in RDFa is
> used as synonym to 'predicate', here it is used in the sense of the
> value for a subject.
>
>
I agree.  I changed it.



> Second:
> 7.2 Evaluation context, second list, item 6:
> ---
> now:
> A value for the current property value, the literal to use when
> creating triples that have a literal object, or IRI-s in the absence
> of @rel or @rev.
>
> This sentence kills me.
>
> 1) Is it a value for a predicate in general?
> 2) Is it a value for the attribute @property?
> 3) Is it a value for an object, that is a literal?
> 4) Is it a value for an object, that can be literal or IRI?
>
> I would call 1) 'current predicate value'.
> I would call 2) 'current property value'.
> I would call 3) 'current object literal'
> I would call 4) 'current object value'
>
> My ansers to the above:
> It cannot be 1) or 2), because they would require
> TERMorCURIEorAbsIRIs not a literal, like stated in the explanation.
> It cannot be 3), because it could be IRIs also.
> I could be 4), but the term 'current property value' doesn't really
> allow that.
>
> So what now?
>

I hate to say it, but it helps to have coded an implementation.  When I
read this sentence it makes perfect sense, and that is appalling - it is
TERRIBLE English. What it means is that there is a 'current property value'
that is determined for each element as it is being processed.  That value
is a literal if  there is @rel or @rev, and otherwise is an IRI.  See Step
11 of the Processing Steps.  But there should be no details in 7.2.  It is
just a definition.



>
>
> Below are some more comments to the old stuff. Have to rush out now,
> some things below I'll finish commenting later.
>
> Stefan
>
>
> On 13 Apr 2013 at 12:34, Shane McCarron 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.
> > > Comment.
> >
> >
> > > 5.0 Attributes and Syntax, definition vocab
> > > A IRI
> > > an IRI
> > > The 'a' or 'an' is in small letters elsewhere in the document.
> > Fixed
> The PER doesn't show it as yet.
>

I had missed one of them - thanks.  Fixed.


>
> > > 7.6.1, third paragraph
> > > ... allow the developer, if they would ...
> developer, they
> > > ... allow the developers, if they would ...
> > > Similar like above with author.
> > Fixed.
> The PER doesn't show it as yet.
>
>
Fixed this one harder.


>
> > > 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.
> The PER doesn't show it as yet.
>

I changed it so that it uses they correctly in the impersonal way that W3C
prefers.  I know that it feels like improper English, but it is a way to be
gender neutral.  While 'they' is traditionally plural, it can also be used
in a singular context - it just feels weird.


>
>
> > > 9, last note
> > > entire note
> > > ul
> > > a nice list would make it better readable
> > Fixed.
> Looks nice. There is the word 'Literal' in the last list item, it
> might like a small letter? All the other literals have small letters.
> Except:
> Serching the doc for literal I found in the table of contents:
> 8.3.1.2 Typed literals. Here it should be capital, because in the TOC
> all literals have capital letters.
>

I changed this too.  Thanks!


>
>
>
> --
> Stefan Schumacher
> Lonavala, Maharashtra, India
> +91 9923670737
>
>
I will commit these changes shortly.  I am not on the right machine now
with the SSH key that works with my W3C account.

-- 
Shane P. McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.