W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [Recipes] new editor's draft

From: Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 21:50:39 -0400
Message-ID: <f032cc060805261850h66934237scf280d5da55d7573@mail.gmail.com>
To: "SWD Working SWD" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Hi Jon & Diego:

I finally got round to reviewing the recent changes [1]. Since most of
the changes this time included rewriting URLs I focused mainly on

In general I was wondering if the examples and the steps should to be
consistent in the use of  URLs as they were in the previous working
draft of March 14th, 2006 [2]. At the moment the examples for each of
the recipes seem to use a location of:


Whereas the steps for each recipe use:


I think I would prefer the steps in all the recipes to be consistent
in the host and paths from the examples. This would include the sample
HTTP requests as well. At the very least I would recommend using
example.com or what have you, instead of yourhost.com.

In addition there were some problems with the files being served up at w3.org:

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples-20080421/example1 lacks
definitions for ClassA, ClassB, propA and propB.

http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples/example2/ lacks
definitions for ClassA, ClassB, propA and propB.

has URIs with http://isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk/VM/http-examples/example3.
Also the document defines class URIs for classA and classB instead of
ClassA and ClassB which are used in the Recipes.

HTML at http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/examples/example4-content/2005-10-31.html
says "Example 3 RDF Vocabulary" at the top.

uses  isegserv.itd.rl.ac.uk instead of www.w3.org ; and no definitions
for ClassA and ClassB (although classA and classB are present).

HTML lacks ids for #ClassA, #ClassB, #propA and #propB.

I think if it's too much trouble to get the server side files correct,
perhaps the easy thing to do would be to simply use example.com
throughout. I think having non-resolvable examples would be preferable
to resolvable but broken examples.

LastIy I got to thinking that RDFa + GRDDL would provide a really nice
way of publishing human and machine readable versions of a RDF
vocabulary in one document without having to play around with any
content negotation. But I realize this is the 11th hour, and there
probably isn't much time to do this. Perhaps it could be another note,
if someone were to find time to do this? I guess RDFa hasn't made it
through the REC process yet, so maybe this is premature.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/recipes/draft-20080421.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-swbp-vocab-pub-20060314/
Received on Tuesday, 27 May 2008 01:51:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:51 UTC