Re: HTML+RDFa 1.1 editorial changes submitted by Alex Milowski

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>wrote:

>
> > It would be really much easier to refer to the modifications listed
> > in section 3.1 if they were numbered or labeled somehow.  For my
> > purposes, a simple number list would suffice.
>
> Done.
>

Looks great!


>
> >> if no IRI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href,
> >> @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the
> >> head or body element. If it is, then set new subject to parent
> >> object."
> >
> > but step 5 has two parts.  It is unclear how each part is modified:
> >
> > 1. Do you all mean that the new subject is only set if the element is
> > 'head' or 'body'?
>
> No, what we're trying to convey is that if @about, @href, @resource, or
> @src don't exist on the HEAD or BODY element, then 'new subject' should
> be set to 'parent object'.
>
> > 2. In 5.1 and 5.2, the final default for the new subject is the value
> > of the parent object. Also, for step 6, the default is already the
> > parent object.
>
> Hmm, I think you're correct. We did make some changes to RDFa Core that
> made this alignment. I vaguely remember thinking that I'd remove the
> language if we made the alignment, but then probably forgot to remove
> the language. That said, I also remember thinking I could remove the
> language and then finding out that there was a corner case where this
> was not possible.
>
> For example, for step 5.1, what happens with this markup?
> <head typeof="http://schema.org/WebPage"> ? I think this triple is
> created:
>
> _:bnode1 rdf:type schema:WebPage .
>
> When I thought what we intended was this:
>
> <> rdf:type schema:WebPage
>
> It seems like we should have this in step 5.1 as well?
>
> "otherwise, set the typed resource to the value of new subject." before
> we try to create a new bnode in step 5.1
>
> We'll discuss this on the call this week, and remove the text if the WG
> agrees. It seems like the text is unnecessary, but that there might be a
> bug in step 5.1.
>

Yes, I get the intent and that's what I implemented.

Without an explicit subject and without the change, you would get a blank
node.

I went back through my code and I wonder if all the cases are covered by
the test suite?  Specifically, @rel/@rev on head/body without an explicit
subject.


>
> > 2. You all should add a reference to the [@datetime attribute in the
> > HTML5] spec [1].
>
> Done, but with the caveat that Gregg elaborated upon in his response to
> you. We don't strictly follow the HTML5 content model because it would
> complicate processing without having a very strong upside.
>

OK.


>
> > 3. Is it the case that there is a deterministic algorithm for
> > property detecting the type from the possible set of values and
> > non-values?
>
> I agree with Gregg. A good bit of effort went into this particular
> section of text in the specification (most of the RDFa WG members
> wordsmithed that text). It is correct. :)
>

Looking at the value spaces as defined in XML Schema Part 2 [1], I think
the correct testing order is:

  xs:duration, xs:dateTime, xs:date, xs:time, xs:gYearMonth, xs:gYear

It would be good to mention this at least as a non-normative note.


>
> > It just feels like [HTML Literals] should be there in [RDFa Core]
> > regardless of whether or not the host language can actually support
> > it.
>
> I agree. We do not have the authority to change the RDFa Core
> specification with a normative change of that magnitude at this point in
> time. I've recorded your request for a future RDFa Working Group:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/149


OK, thanks.


>
>
> > The property copying "feature" of the HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification
> > feels to me like it is in the wrong place.  It should be part of the
> >  core for RDFa.
>
> Agreed, but we can't make that sort of non-normative change now (see
> above). I opened an issue for it:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/150


OK, thanks.

It wasn't that hard to implement but it would be useful elsewhere and the
inconsistencies in features between (X)HTML5 and other modes might be
confusing.  Hopefully, this will sort itself out in time.


>
> Ok, I think those are all of your comments. The changes should be
> visible here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-in-html/Overview-src.html
>
> Let me know if I missed something.
>

It looks good.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/


-- 
--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 Wednesday, 29 May 2013 23:00:07 UTC