Re: WG comments on RDFa Lite 1.1 for LC publishing, second version (ACTION-106)

Hi Manu,

all answer that I do not explicitly reflect on below are perfect for me...

On Jan 21, 2012, at 21:04 , Manu Sporny wrote:

[skip]

> 
> 
>> 2.2. about
>> 
>> " using a unique Uniform Resource Locator (URL)" we had the issue on
>> the usage of URI vs. URL. We should have a consistency across
>> document which, in this case, I believe would mean to use URI-s. The
>> document should be checked for the URL/URI issue overall.
> 
> The choice to use "URL" was a very deliberate one. :)
> 
> Beginning web authors are going to be reading this document, and rather
> than confuse them with the URI/IRI/URL distinction, I used what I think
> is the most colloquial form of saying "identifier" among Web authors -
> "URL". I checked the document for consistency and believe we use "URL"
> everywhere.

The only issue is that there is then a discrepancy between this document and the RDFa Core. This document refers to the Core for the full spec, and this may confuse the very same reader wanting to know more about the details. I am not sure what the best course of action should be, but I feel this is still an issue. Maybe a note, a parenthetical remark, or something, would be useful.

> 
>> 2.3 prefix
>> 
>> In the example: maybe my zoological knowledge is poor, but is there
>> such an animal as 'Liger'? Or did you mean 'Tiger'?:-)
> 
> Shane specifically requested that we use the example of a Liger because
> it, metaphorically, captures what we hope to achieve with RDFa Lite. He
> is an expert in this area. I suggest we listen to him:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
> 
> :P

Well... I must honestly admit that until reviewing this document I have never met this term in my life, so I had to look it up on wikipedia this morning. I am afraid, that level of subtlety will evade 90% of the readers (mainly the non-English ones) who will consider that as a simple misspelling (just as I did). I still believe we should be more down-to-Earth and use the Tiger example (or Lion, or any other well-known animal...)

[skip]

> 
>> 2. (General comment)
>> 
>> - An attentive reader of RDFa 1.1 Core might realize that, in all
>> places, a full URI can be used. Ie, @vocab is not the _only_ way of
>> doing things. It may be worth noting that and adding an example on
>> that in the section (with a special attention to those who want to
>> see only full URI-s).
> 
> I think that the purpose of this document is to give people a very quick
> overview of RDFa Lite and outline document conformance, nothing more.
> That is, I don't think we should put lots of examples in the document
> because that will lead to a longer document and may lead to people
> thinking that RDFa Lite is more complicated than it is. We have had very
> positive feedback so far on the simplicity of the document, let's keep
> it simple.
> 
> I do think you have a point - we need to outline some of these more
> "advanced" RDFa Lite features... but let's do that in the Primer.
> Perhaps the Primer should start out by teaching RDFa Lite and then move
> on to the more complex form of RDFa?

O.k., I buy that. I guess that once we are over the CR transition, we should look at the Primer again. There are other issues to solve there, too (eg, the comments of Guus).

[skip]

> 
> Ivan, please let us know if these changes have satisfied your concerns
> by Wednesday, February 1st 2012 (the day before we decide to enter the
> Last Call period).
> 

As I said, I am fine!

Thank you, Manu!

Ivan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf