W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2007

Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:23:29 +0200
Message-ID: <46B83A11.4010104@w3.org>
To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Well,

I did not really care about validation, to be honest. The XHTML part
should be changed anyway, because the meta is still in the <body> part.
For the sake of this mail, let me reproduce the core of the thing:

[[[
	<body>
		<span xml:base="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/">
  		<link about="" rel="dc:creator"
href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" />
  		<meta property="dc:title" content="Internet Applications" />
		</span>
	</body>
]]]

The sparql part says:

[[[
ASK WHERE {
	?x0 <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "Internet Applications" .
	<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>
<http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .
}
]]]

which seems to suggest that the value of ?x0 is still pending. pyRdfa
returns:

[[[
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rdf:RDF
  xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
  xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'
>
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="0004.xhtml">
    <dc:title>Internet Applications</dc:title>
  </rdf:Description>
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/">
    <dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
]]]

which I claim _is_ correct (with the caveat that it refers to the file
name for "" and not to the test URI). Ie, the value of ?x0 should be, in
my view:

<http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004.xhtml>

The test _is_ a bit tricky indeed: the <meta> inherits from its parent
the @about value as a subject, but I do not believe that setting the
xml:base should change the value of that inherited subject implicitly.
That is why I believe that the result of pyRdfa is correct...


Ivan


Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> 
> Ivan,
> 
> Not so sure about @xml:base.
> 
> What I know is that we have TC 4 [1] on hold 
> because it does not validate due to @xml:base ?!
> 
> Shane, any thoughts/explanations?
> 
> Cheers,
> 	Michael
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:59 PM
>> To: Hausenblas, Michael
>> Cc: W3C RDFa task force
>> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)
>>
>> One thing, though.
>>
>> I ran all my tests from my local machine. Ie, the RDF results 
>> were _not_ what the sparql requires because the base is the 
>> local file name and not the test file URI. It is of course 
>> easy to compare things visually.
>> Well, that is what you would think: one of my bugs was to 
>> handle the relative URI-s properly and I realized the problem 
>> only in the second or third test:-)
>>
>> I wonder whether we should not add an xml:base in most of the 
>> tests (except those that explicitly test xml:base:-).
>>
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org
>>>> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan 
>>>> Herman
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:49 PM
>>>> To: W3C RDFa task force
>>>> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)
>>>>
>>>> I have run the tests that are marked as 'approved' either 
>> explicitly 
>>>> under the heading
>>>>
>>>> "Review and Approval 2007-08-02"
>>>>
>>>> of http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC or in the series of 
>>>> mails of Ben at the end of last week. After some smallish 
>> bugs here 
>>>> and there that I had to handle:-(, this implementation 
>> passes all of these:
>>>> 0001, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0018, 
>>>> 0029, 0030, 0031, 0032
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>> Great! Thanks a lot for this information.
>>>
>>> We'll  certainly gather your feedback (and hopefully the 
>> feedback of 
>>> other implementors) and publish it as a 'Implementor's Report'
>>> - don't know the correct W3Cish term ... but something like this :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> 	Michael
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management  
>> JOANNEUM 
>>> RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>>   
>>>  http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>  
>>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 09:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:09 GMT