- From: Jens Haupert <jens.haupert@dfki.de>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:13:29 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: Alexander Kröner <Alexander.Kroener@dfki.de>, Sebastian Germesin <sebastian.germesin@dfki.de>, Massimo Romanelli <massimo.romanelli@dfki.de>, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@dfki.de>, "public-xg-omm@w3.org" <public-xg-omm@w3.org>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4EA53A49.5080601@dfki.de>
Hello, thank you very much for your feedback. I added some comments. Am 10.10.2011 04:28, schrieb Manu Sporny: > > 1. You should be using RDFa 1.1. Instead of xmlns:, use prefix, like > so: > prefix="omm: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/elements/1.0/" fixed. > 2. Your declaration of xsd is not correct, it should be: > prefix="xsd: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" fixed. > 3. Your OMM vocabulary isn't human or machine readable, you should > public a vocabulary document at: > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/elements/1.0/ At the moment, we do not have a simple human readable vocabulary document, that can be reached with this url. You can find further information at the XG report (http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/XGR-omm-20111026/XGR-omm.html#n3). What does "machine readable" mean? > 4. I suggest that you do not version your vocabulary with minor > release information unless you intend to publish minor releases, > and if so, those minor releases shouldn't break backwards > compatibility in which case the minor release number doesn't > matter. In other words... just use major numbers: > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/elements/1/ fixed. (1 instead of 1.0) > 5. You don't need to express the version number of your vocabulary, > your vocabulary URL above does that. Don't do this: > <span property="omm:version">1</span> fixed. > 6. If your primary ID is a URL, it should be expressed as one, so > instead of this: > <span property="omm:primaryID">http://example.com/p1</span> > do this: > <a rel="omm:primaryID" href="http://example.com/p1">...</a> > You should be doing this with all of your URLs This link may be an URL but this is not mandatory, it can be any string. > 7. This whole Header, Table of Contents, Block stuff in OMM just > does not seem like the right way to model this information. You > have a graph data structure available to you... don't treat it > like tape-based storage data structure. :) Our approach is "how to express the fixed, block-based OM-model with RDFa-strucutures", not "how to encode some data in RDFa the best possible way" (please take a look to our report at http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/omm/XGR-omm-20111026/XGR-omm.html#n3). So an RDFa enriched HTML5 document should lead to the same model as our sample XML files and other/binary encodings. > 8. omm:uri - this term is suspect... why do you need it? IRIs are > first-class citizens in RDF. Do this instead: > <a rel="omm:additionalBlock" href="http://URL_OF_BLOCK">...</a> see (6.) > 9. omm:type is suspect as well. Instead of this: > <span property="omm:type">omm_http</span> > do this: > <span typeof="omm:Http">...</span> > or something to that effect. fixed. > 10. This is redundant: > <span property="omm:date" > datatype="xsd:dateTime">2011-01-31T08:12:50+02:00</span> > of encoding: <span property="omm:encoding">ISO8601</span> > xsd:dateTime is an ISO8601 formatted date, you don't need to > specify that it is again in the next triple. fixed. > 11. omm:hasTag looks a bit like a mess - it looks very complicated and > open ended. > we simplyfied this area as much as possible. > Other than that, the RDFa markup looks fairly good. I think the biggest > issue is the OMM vocabulary itself - it seems to be over-modeling. If > you don't make the vocabulary simpler, the chances of uptake are reduced > greatly. > we keep this in mind and try to ease our approach. > Instead, of trying to think of it in terms of Headers and Tables of > Contents and Blocks... just think of modeling the data as you would a > real object - just add Event objects to the main object and timestamp > them. That said, I don't really know what use cases you need to support > - but the vocabulary seems quite complex for the intended use (and it's > not documented, so I can't understand how each vocabulary term is meant > to be used). > see (7.). We would be pleased to receive your feedback again. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, Jens Haupert -- Jens Haupert (M.Sc.) DFKI GmbH Campus D3_2 Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3 D-66123 Saarbrücken Phone: +49 681 85775 5319 Fax: +49 681 85775 5021 Mail: jens.haupert@dfki.de Web: http://www.dfki.de/~haupert ------------------------------------------------------------- Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) Dr. Walter Olthoff Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 -------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments
- text/html attachment: omm_rdfa.html
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 10:14:07 UTC