- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:15:41 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I see on issue. > > The pattern-copy rule currently says: > > > if > > ?subject rdfa:copy ?target > ?target ?predicate ?object > > then add > > ?subject ?predicate ?object > > I believe the 'if' clause should also include > > ?target rdf:type rdfa:Pattern I agree. Also, when copying, I don't think the rdf:type of rdfa:Pattern should be copied; right? So I believe the "then add: ?subject ?predicate ?object" needs a condition, like "unless: ?predicate = rdf:type and ?object = rdfa:Pattern" (possibly put in a new rightmost column). Furthermore, the text in "3.5 Pattern copying" uses the word "item" or "items" in four places. I think we should say "resource" consistently (there are no "RDFa items", there are only descriptions, in RDFa, of resources). I notice the examples use @rel and not @property. While the markup is shorter, we might want to use @property to keep them Lite? Anyway, I feel that "Pattern" works really well (better than "Prototype") to convey the meaning. I might even be ok with "copy", albeit it reads more imperative than declarative. :) Cheers, Niklas > > Ivan > > > > On Jan 21, 2013, at 04:24 , Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have prepped the HTML+RDFa 1.1 Last Call draft. All resolutions made >> by this group have been applied. All issues have been processed by the >> RDFa WG. I have ensured that all resolutions have matching specification >> text. I also made a complete pass through the spec to fix issues related >> to consistency, grammar, and flow. The document validates, the links do >> not right now, but that will be fixed before publication. The >> specification can be found here: >> >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/ >> >> We need two other reviews by anybody on this mailing list before we go >> to Last Call. The document is short, it should take about an hour to >> carefully read through the document. Please volunteer and send in your >> review comments ASAP. >> >> I have also discussed changing the short-name associated with the >> specification with Ivan and Thomas (the Domain Lead for this work). The >> change would be from 'rdfa-in-html' to 'html-rdfa' to match the >> 'xhtml-rdfa' specification. Other specifications like 'svg-rdfa' and >> 'epub-rdfa' may follow the new short-name pattern. The old >> 'rdfa-in-html' shortname would be HTTP 301 'Permanent redirect'ed to >> the new 'html-rdfa' location. >> >> RDFa WG members, here is the proposal to take the document into Last >> Call. +1/0/-1 the proposal as soon as you feel that you are ready to >> provide an opinion on the matter. >> >> PROPOSAL: Publish the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification as a Last Call Working >> Draft. Change the short-name to 'html-rdfa'. Publish the specification >> on January 31st, 2013 with a LC period of 3 weeks from the time of >> publication. >> >> -- manu >> >> -- >> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) >> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> blog: Aaron Swartz, PaySwarm, and Academic Journals >> http://manu.sporny.org/2013/payswarm-journals/ >> > > > ---- > 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, 20 January 2013 22:16:40 UTC