- From: Gregg Kellogg <greggkellogg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 21:30:27 +0200
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Oct 9, 2012, at 8:14 PM, Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com> wrote: > Hi, > > This is a comment on Microdata to RDF, section 1.1 Background [1] > > The first paragraph creates a quick introduction and it becomes very quickly negative, such as "Microdata's data model does not align neatly with RDF." The first concrete example is popping up only in section 3.1. It's not very pleasant to read. Karl, thanks for your comments, on this and the other suggestions you made separately. At this point, the time for comments for this revision is past. We'll hold onto these to include in the next update. The introduction is not intended to be negative, and indeed, this is essentially the same introduction as was released in the original note in March. Placing an example up front is a good idea. Gregg > Suggestions: > > * Give a very simple markup example of microdata right away > * Give the equivalent in turtle. > * And explain in this case why it is useful and what someone could do with it. > > Then move the part about the model differences in a section in between "1.2 Use cases" and "1.3 Issues" with the title "Microdata data model differences with RDF" > > [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-microdata-rdf-20121009/#background > > -- > Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ > Developer Relations, Opera Software > >
Received on Tuesday, 9 October 2012 19:30:59 UTC