W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2004

RDF/A review summary

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 20:34:28 +0100
Message-ID: <418149C4.7070004@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>



Summary:

I think other than the xml:lang on XMLLiteral issue, where I think it 
behoves us to either have an opinion or explicitly not, I don't think 
any of these issues are ones where there are right and wrong answers. 
It's largely a matter of judgement (often aesthetic), and Mark and 
Steven as editors have the pen and the power, and I am happy offering 
the comments, as informal personal comments on this list, for their perusal.

Others may be motivated to strengthen/modify some of the comments.
I mark the ones I think of most interest with ** below.

=========

I've basically reviewed sections 4 and 5.1 of

http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/rdf-a.html

with occasional reference elsewhere.

This was just about clear enough for implementation, but could and 
probably should be spruced up a little before being published as WD.

A)
I had one significant technical concern, where I seem to disagree with 
Mark. This was to do with xml:lang

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0032

B)
**
I suggested a way to allow in-line plain and typed literals, rather than 
just using @content attributes:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0037
comments 3 and 4

C)
**
There is a painful interaction with certain datatype URIs, specifically 
some being planned by the XML Schema WG. We could add an additional 
datatypeURI attribute to circumvent this, but I quite like the current 
datatype attribute with a qname value.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0037
comment 2

D)
**
I don't much like the xpointer-like #bnode(a) scheme, and don't think it 
is necessary (para 4.4.3 seems to suffice). If para 4.4.3 does not, then 
I would prefer a @objNodeID attribute or something.
See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0021
and thread.

E)
Some may be concerned that the treatment of xml:id means, in general 
RDF/A requires validation (although not for processing of XHTML2).
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0031

F)
(Also since the attributes in RDF/A are non-qualified this means that 
the host language, e.g. XHTML2 needs to explicitly support RDF/A).

G)
I thought that there were two many variations and suggest some 
simplification to para 4.3.4 in particular:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0035
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0034
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0046
point 4

H)
However, I also suggested various 'enhancements' (complexifications) my
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0046
point 5 (implicit bnode objects as well as subjects)
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2004Oct/0037
points 3 and 4 (already mentioned, in-line plain and typed literals)

Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 19:35:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:14:59 GMT