W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005)

From: Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 <jeremy@miko.hk>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:43:20 +0800
Message-ID: <003301c5f3c5$7ee74600$6802a8c0@miko.hk.local>
To: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, "'Ben Adida'" <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Mark,

See my comments inline.
--
Miko-Kings Instruments Ltd.
Web: http://www.miko.com.hk/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
To: "'Ben Adida'" <ben@mit.edu>; "'Jeremy Wong ???'" <jeremy@miko.hk>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 7:08 AM
Subject: RE: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005)


> Jeremy/Ben,
>
> My first ever attempt at producing what became RDF/A actually did use
> rdf:about [1]. In fact I tried to use *all* of the RDF/XML attributes, and
> simply layer them onto XHTML. I was trying to make it so that a standard
> RDF/XML parser could just start 'swallowing' RDF that it found in an XHTML
> document. (An RDF/XML parser is supposed to skip over anything it doesn't
> understand, so it's quite legitimate to place RDF/XML deep in a document.)

I cannot agree with you that an RDF/XML parser is supposed to skip over 
anything it doesn't understand. It is because I wrote a RDF/XML parser 
before in accordance with the RDF/XML Grammer [1]. However, it is still not 
too difficult to implement RDF/A parser having experience in RDF/XML parser.

>
> However, although I got close, it is actually not possible to do this (as
> with a lot of things, it's the way predicates are done in RDF/XML that
> ultimately catches you out). And in my view, unless the RDF attributes 
> could
> be used in their *proper* sense, they shouldn't be used at all. My
> justification for this is not just because it might be confusing--although
> that is certainly true--but also that just because I was not able to 
> develop
> a technique that incorporated *all* of the RDF/XML attributes into XHTML 
> 2,
> didn't mean that people couldn't still embed RDF/XML into XHTML documents 
> in
> the same way they could in any other documents. If we had co-opted the
> RDF/XML attributes for our use but slightly changed the rules, it would
> cause mayhem!

You may concentrate on those frequently used attributes, including 
rdf:about, rdf:resource, rdf:datatype, rdf:nodeID, xml:lang, xml:base. Other 
RDF attributes should be "obsoleted" in RDF/A syntax. By the way, the 
attribute "lang" no more exists in XHTML 1.1, "xml:lang" is forced to use 
instead. Using "rdf:" prefix may not be so confusing...

>
> The next iteration on the path to RDF/A (called RDF/XHTML [2]) therefore
> involved adding attributes that were specific to XHTML 2.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> [1] http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/xhtml-meta-data-02.html
> [2] http://www.formsplayer.com/notes/xhtml-meta-data-03.html
>
>
> Mark Birbeck
> CEO
> x-port.net Ltd.
>
> e: Mark.Birbeck@x-port.net
> t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
> w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/
>
> Download our XForms processor from
> http://www.formsPlayer.com/
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
>> Sent: 27 November 2005 22:42
>> To: Jeremy Wong ???
>> Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005)
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeremy,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. A quick response below.
>>
>> > 1. "rdf:about" instead of "about"
>> > "rdf:about" is pretty well-known. To learn a new attribute,
>> > "rdf:about" and "about" are no difference. Just a name to
>> remember...
>> > e.g., <p rdf:about=""><a rel="dc:creator"
>> > href="mailto:bill.gates@microsoft.com">Bill Gates</a> blah
>> blah</p> =>
>> > { <> dc:creator <mailto:bill.gates@microsoft> . }
>>
>> Having rdf:about but xhtml2:rel, xhtml2:property, and
>> xhtml2:href seems inconsistent. Having them all scoped as
>> rdf: is not possible without adding to that namespace, which
>> seems like overkill.
>>
>> Note also that rdf:about is completely unknown to the HTML
>> community, so I suspect this would cause more confusion than
>> consistency.
>>
>> > 2. use the "type" attribute for typed literal The "type"
>> attribute is
>> > from the anchor element.
>> > e.g., <p rdf:about=""><a rel="dc:date"
>> > type="xsd:dateTime">2005-11-25T00:46:00+0800</a> blah
>> blah</p> => { <>
>> > dc:date "2005-11-25T00:46:00+0800"^^xsd:dateTime . }
>>
>> So you're suggesting "type" instead of "datatype". I'm not
>> expert enough on this issue to say which is better. Any
>> particular reason for your suggestion?
>>
>> > 3. use of Production "propertyAttr" [1] I recommend to use
>> > "propertyAttr" for the case of "nodeElement" [2] only, never
>> > "emptyPropertyElt" [3] e.g. <p rdf:about=""
>> > dc:subject="SemanticWeb">blah blah blah</p> => { <> dc:subject
>> > "SemanticWeb" . }
>>
>> This is an issue which we've currently put off. In the
>> current draft, a property is never declared as an attribute
>> except in special HTML- specific cases (like class and role).
>> We may take this up again, though right now we're leaning
>> towards simpler, fewer methods of saying the same thing.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>>
>
>

Regards,
Jeremy Wong

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Infoset-Grammar 
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 02:44:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT