W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 23:23:57 +0200
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, "public-html-data-tf@w3.org" <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <732A493E-7616-4FD1-BDF8-1B785D67A6D7@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>
Hi Gavin,
thanks for raising this. But as far as I can see, this issue is "still pending review" and anyway just considered for RDF 1.1, so current SPARQL implementations will still break on this.

Anyway, in this respect I think it is important to find a way to indicate the language of the value for a "content" attribute in 

   <meta content="xyz">

patterns in Microdata; I just found out that the language of the context will not be used by Microdata-to-RDF parsers.


On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Hepp
> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>> Ah! Thanks! That is a bug in my RDFa example. In all GoodRelations examples, we use datatyping, except for xsd:string, because while this is theoretically needed, too, the distinction between plain literals and typed RDF literals with xsd:string as their type is hard to explain to practitioners.
> The RDF WG has resolved to remove that distinction. "example" ==
> "example"^^xsd:string the current working draft of RDF Concepts talks
> more about this,
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
> Cheers,
> Gavin
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:24:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:05 UTC