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

Re: Parsing Microdata into RDF Graphs: URI Comparison

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2011 03:47:43 -0400
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5F1C5D79-5B9D-49C0-B940-1B52E0EFBC29@greggkellogg.net>
That's the tack that RDFa has taken, but I don't know if we can do it with Microdata. In every other case we ensure that the data model created by the Microdata to RDF spec is compatible with the Microdata DOM and JSON representation. This would have to include URL generation too, I would think. We could possibly address it through the Registry, but the more we rely on that, the weaker the whole processing algorithm becomes.

The issue of HTML+RDFa is one for the RDF WebApps group to look at, I forwarded to Manu for consideration. I don't think it is as big a deal for HTML+RDFa, as it is not defined in terms of the HTML DOM. But it would be unusual for it to be done two different ways.

Jeni, it seems to me that this is an issue the TAG needs to look at. Having two different ways of doing URL/URI/IRI resolution would seem like something that is a AWWW issue.

Gregg

On Oct 30, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Martin Hepp wrote:

> Hi all:
> 
> I have no strong opinion on either side; I just wanted to highlight that there is an issue, which can be fixed at either one of the two ends, either by fixing the Microdata spec or by catering for it in the MD2RDF conversion.
> 
> In general, I have a slight preference to treat URLs for itemprop and href as mere identifiers and not resource locators and thus do only minimal canonicalization, e.g. attaching the base URI to relative identifiers.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On Oct 30, 2011, at 8:24 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> 
>> Gregg, Martin,
>> 
>> What a headache. Are you raising this is an issue with the RDFWAWG?
>> 
>> On 29 Oct 2011, at 21:33, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> Martin raises some good points about URI modification required in the Microdata spec. I'll need to note this behavior in the Microdata to RDF spec, and it also needs to be considered as advice for people choosing between RDFa and Microdata.
>> 
>> One thing we can do within the task force is advise authors to avoid using itemids that would resolve differently when used as URIs in the two situations, if we can characterise such URIs.
>> 
>> I've asked Henry, Ted and Philip for help identifying what they might be and ways that we might create some tests.
>> 
>> Thanks for raising this,
>> 
>> Jeni
>> -- 
>> Jeni Tennison
>> http://www.jenitennison.com
>> 
> 
Received on Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:48:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 30 October 2011 07:48:35 GMT