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

Re: Updated Microdata to RDF draft

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2011 19:34:40 +0100
Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D1E311E2-9E70-4EB2-9D4E-9947587BF3BE@jenitennison.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>

On 29 Oct 2011, at 16:25, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2011, at 2:02 AM, "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>> A quick thing for your next revision to the microdata RDF spec: Hixie has resolved the issue on replacing <time> with <data> [1] and made the relevant changes in the spec [2]. The new <data> element has a value attribute which is used to provide the relevant microdata property value [3].
> 
> Looking at the diffs, it is clear that @value is intended for typed data, and that lexical scanning might be in order. I believe Hixie would reject this and say that the vocabulary must define the types and be explicitly supported by a processor, but for generic transformation this is not feasible.
> 
> If we do lexical scanning, what set of datatypes is appropriate? Thoughts?

Personally, I don't think we should do any lexical scanning. Whether an appropriate data type is assigned based on property information from a registry is another question.

It might be that even with a default mapping, literals generated from @value attributes shouldn't be language tagged, as they're designed to hold machine-readable rather than human-readable values.

Jeni

>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c47
>> [2] http://html5.org/r/6783
>> [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#values

-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Saturday, 29 October 2011 18:35:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 29 October 2011 18:35:23 GMT