Re: comment: RDF/A Primer 1.0 - FOAF vocabulary manual for dummies

* Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org> [2006-05-15 16:11+0900]
> 
> Hi,
> This is a QA Review comment for "RDF/A Primer 1.0"
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/
> Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:37:46 GMT
> 1st WD
> 
> 
> [[[
> Jo then looks through the FoaF vocabulary, and sees that the pieces  
> of information that she has in her page%u2014name, phone number and  
> email address%u2014all have names within FoaF. She therefore adds  
> those names to her document, using the following approach:
> ]]]
> 
> -- RDF/A Primer 1.0
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xhtml-rdfa-primer-20060310/#id67992
> Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:37:46 GMT
> 
> 
> Where Jo will find the element of this vocabulary?
> Is there a guide with simple explanation for each words and keywords?  
> A kind of 101 manual.

In some sense this is a comment on the readability of the FOAF spec, but
more generally (since FOAF is just am example here), perhaps this is a 
use case for SW vocabulary browsers / instance editors. I'll try to make
FOAF spec more readable/skimmable in next rev, ... but I'm not convinced 
it'll ever be the case that webmasters with no in-depth knowledge of 
RDF will be able to skim an ontology and know what markup to use, based 
purely on seeing which terms are defined. 

What might work is templated examples.

Related point while I'm at it. Neither FOAF nor DC's conventional usage
employ the XMLLiteral datatype, yet all these RDF/A examples have dc:title
and foaf:name taking XMLLiterals. Plain literals are more likely. 
In  fact for FOAF, the schema says:
Range:  http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal

Also s/FoaF/FOAF/

cheers,

Dan

ps. see some of you at XTech shortly, can discuss in person...

Received on Monday, 15 May 2006 07:28:25 UTC