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

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-8: RDF containers in RDFa

From: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:31:10 +0100
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tvckt8yw63ayaz@keith-alexanders-computer.local>

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:10:26 +0100, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:

> I wrote a proposal on RDFa containers a while ago:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2006-rdfa-containers

"Two factors motivate the introduction of syntactic sugar for RDF  
containers in RDF/A:
1. the explicit use of such RDF properties is inconvenient for human  
authors, and
2. XHTML already offers elements that naturally exhibit RDF container  

Personally, I would  prefer to be explicit, instead of having syntactic  
sugar for lists.

In general, I think it would be good for the RDFa rules to be as simple  
and consistent as possible, so that it is easy to understand how to write  
it, and also easy to write parsers.

With regards to lists in particular, I find lists in HTML much more useful  
than lists in RDF, and would rather that the two were not so tightly  
coupled that I couldn't write an HTML list without it generating triples.

I suppose this is counter to what seems to be RDFa's ideal of having the  
semantics of RDF and HTML fundamentally integrated, but as an RDF-in-HTML  
author, what I (generally) want is for the triples to describe a resource,  
rather than the HTML representation of that resource.

And as I said with regards to labels, it is probably safer not to try to  
be too helpful, and just leave the author in full control, because you  
can't know in advance how they will want to use RDFa.

My tuppence worth.


Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2007 10:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC