Re: HTML+RDFa 1.1 Typo?

On May 23, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:

> OK.  I didn't add the type predicate in my implementation and so that seemed odd.  I now understand the copy pattern would generally apply to the type from the pattern.
> 
> Reading this section again, I am concerned that the tests do not properly cover this feature.  Specifically, I think that pattern chaining isn't quite covered. 
> 
> Also, the clean pattern seems to imply that subjects with rdfa:copy predicates involving targets that do not exist would have their rdfa:copy predicate remain in the graph.  I don't see a test that covers that situation.
> 
> Test 0327 covers chaining when there is a blank node within the pattern.  That blank node will have its own subject and so any single-pass algorithm will catch it.
> 
> If you remove the blank node in 0327, an single pass won't be sufficient depending on the order of processing.

Depends on how you implement it. If you collect all references and patterns in a buffer, you can then iterate over those after the document is processed; you're performing multiple passes, but only over the buffered references and patterns.

That said, if there are things you don't think are adequately tested, consider contributing new tests to the suite. We probably want to tie that up this week, though.

Gregg

> For example:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html>
> <head>
>   <base href="http://example.com/"/>
> </head>
> <body>
>   <div typeof="schema:Person">
>     <link property="rdfa:copy" resource="_:a"/>
>     <link property="rdfa:copy" resource="_:b"/>
>   </div>
>   <p resource="_:a" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">Name: <span property="schema:name">Amanda</span></p>
>   <div resource="_:b" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">
>       <link property="rdfa:copy" resource="_:c"/>
>   </div>
>   <div resource="_:c" typeof="rdfa:Pattern">
>    <p><span property="schema:e-mail">amanda@example.com</span></p>
>   </div>
> </body>
> </html>
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> That's actually intentional. The last rule on the right side, "?target ?predicate ?object", takes care also of removing "?target rdf:type rdfa:Pattern" (since it removes all statements about ?target).
> 
> The rule to remove "?subject rdf:type rdfa:Pattern" is needed since after the pattern has been copied entirely, the rdfa:Pattern type statement has been copied too, which is not the intent.
> 
> A more effective implementation would not add that triple in the first place only to remove it, but I believe this was the simplest way to express these rules in a familiar notation for inference. (Hence the notes in the spec to make it clear that you're allowed to apply any algorithm you need as long as the outcome is the same.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Niklas
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:
> In section 3.5.1, I believe the pattern-clean rule is meant to have on the right side:
> 
> ?target rdf:type rdfa:Pattern
> 
> instead of:
> 
> ?subject rdf:type rdfa:Pattern
> 
> -- 
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> 
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --Alex Milowski
> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> considered."
> 
> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics

Received on Thursday, 23 May 2013 16:25:22 UTC