W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2006

Issues List (was: Re: still busy)

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:06:45 -0400
Message-ID: <44EB8E05.40108@torrez.us>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
CC: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Thanks Elias.
> On 22/08/06, Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us> wrote:
>> Besides everything on my email [1] we could go over a couple of things.
>> For example, the fact that rel="has multiple relationships" bit me the
>> other day.
>> """The processor rule is simple: each of these attributes generates
>> exactly one triple."""
>> I'm not sure whether it's needed to say that each of those attributes
>> may have multiple values. :)
> Good point :)
>> Another is the lack of text defining datatype="plaintext" and the
>> overuse of rdfs:XMLLiteral.
> By overuse, do you mean like 'overloading'?

First, I meant that the 'plaintext' is only mentioned once in the spec.
The other, I meant overuse. Doesn't everything default to
rdfs:XMLLiteral if no datatype is specified? If so, my parser [1] ends
up returning everything as XML types.

CSAIL Room 32G-694</foaf:street2>
Vassar Street</foaf:street>

instead of this:

  <foaf:street2>MIT CSAIL Room 32G-694</foaf:street2>
  <foaf:street>32 Vassar Street</foaf:street>

I like the second best. Especially for simple things like:

 <span property="dc:title">Crypto Nerd</span>

Maybe I'm asking to affect the extraction of the object based on the

>> One last one for now is that I was pointed by Eric van der Vlist that
>> the XHTML 2.0 spec [2] says that if datatype is not defined the default
>> value is xsd:string.
> Do you think it should be 'undefined'? Or some other value? Probably
> the key is whether RDF itself has a default value.

In the RDFa Syntax spec [2] XMLLiteral is the default and I understand
why, but I would like to make revisit the issue. In RDF plain literals
don't have a type and are distinct from xsd:string typed literals. As a
matter of fact, we can't have xml:lang unless is a plain literal (no

>> If you think these warrant a call, I'll be glad to join in.
> We could certainly deal with these on the list, but I don't mind
> having a call, either. Is anyone else around though? Steven...Ralph?
> Regards,
> Mark

[1] http://torrez.us/services/rdfa/http://ben.adida.net/card
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2006 23:10:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:48 UTC