Re: [ALL] RDF/A Primer for review

>Guus and team,
>Happy New Year!
>Please find the latest version of the RDF/A Primer at:
>This document *may* change in small ways before Monday's telecon, 
>but will remain stable for the week that follows the telecon. We're 
>looking forward to comments from our two reviewers and from anyone 
>else in the working group who has the time.

Overall, very nice. Few quibbles/niggles:

1. Why use "content" for an explicit object/value? We already have 
too many words for this, and that particular word is kind of 
subject/object neutral so IMO could lead to confusion, eg folk come 
to see this as a text/URI alternator, and then use it to indicate a 
subject, rather than "about". I'd suggest an unmistakeable neologism 
like 'pvalue' or 'propvalue' (I know its ugly, thats the point :-)

2. Congratulations for inventing CURIEs, but I bet you ought to call 
them CIRIs or COIRIs now, and I bet you ought to define them relative 
to IRIs rather than to URI/Qnames.

3. If I follow this, the only way to include a 'pure' RDF triple in 
RDF-A is to create an XML <li> element with an id. So all RDF-A 
triples have to have separate XML ids. (??) If so, this seems like an 
unnecessary burden. Surely it wouldn't be hard to allow RDF-A to 
include chunks of 'pure' RDF (by which I mean, not explicitly linked 
to ids of items in the XML itself) more or less unchanged from 
RDF/XML, or some other RDF notation in common use? I think this might 
be important for deployed applications, since it would allow RDF/XML 
to be smoothly transitioned into RDF-A, and would also allow RDF-A to 
encode OWL/RDF annotations without incurring a needless notational 
burden. Also, giving an id to a whole RDF (sub)graph fits naturally 
with the 'named graph' idea, unlike giving an id to every triple.

4. This is probably not appropriate for XHTML, but I can't help 
thinking that it would be really nice (and even more compact) if one 
could use CSS to attach properties and datatypes to spans. Just a 
passing thought :-)

Pat Hayes

>PS: please forgive the futuristic date in the URI, the content 
>should clearly state the right draft target date as well as the CVS 
>last updated date.

IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell

Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 16:37:05 UTC