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

Re: Mapping Microdata to RDF

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 12:53:00 +0100
To: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <20111026125300.4307c4f1@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
A few comments on
<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/24af1cde0da1/microdata-rdf/index.html>...

1. Creating RDF collections for repeated properties is an awful idea.
Consider the example in appendix A. The object of the frbr:realization
is a blank node of type rdf:List. According to the FRBR Core vocab, the
range of frbr:realization is frbr:Expression. If we assume that
frbr:Expression and rdf:List are disjoint classes (which seems to be a
reasonable assumption), you've created a logical contradiction. So the
graph generated by parsing the microdata does not match up to the
expectations of the vocabulary, and probably does not match up to the
expectations of the page author.

I can understand the desire to preserve document order to cover
certain use cases, but it's possible to do that outside of the RDF
model. (e.g. Rather than parse the page as a whole and operate on the
graph returned, you could supply a callback function to the parser to
be called as each triple is extracted from the page. The callback
function would then receive triples in document order.)

TLDR: generating collections breaks ranges.

2. Are there use cases where your new behaviour for <blockquote> and
<q> is actually useful? Seems to me that most people would expect
<blockquote itemprop> and <q itemprop> to use the contents of the
element as the property value, irrespective of whether @cite is present.

Hmmm... only two comments? That must mean you did a good job.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2011 11:51:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 October 2011 11:51:55 GMT