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

Re: [RDFa] non-binding resolutions

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:37:52 -0700
Message-ID: <46AA1150.6070904@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Ivan Herman wrote:
> - the subject of @property remains unchanged and looks for the closes
> RDF identity up the XML tree

Yes, if we agree that an RDF identity *exists* only when a @rel,@rev,
@instanceof, or @about appears :)

> - one small thing that you seem to forget: the @data attribute on the
> <object>. Do we remain silent on that, or do we include them on the same
> level and functionality as @src? I would propose to equate it with @src

In a telecon, we leaned towards not specifying anything for @data at
this point, simply because there may be many ways to resolve this, and
it's not clear it's really necessary. Is this really important to you?
Is there a use case?

> I believe that the rules I outlined for containers and collections in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0174.html
> 
> remain valid, too, ie, that long term issue may be considered as solved
> as well.

I just responded to this, and I think there is at least one issue to
consider.

> The only open issue I still see is my proposal on "_:". As I say in
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0174.html
> 
> I do not see any other way to create something like
> 
> [ a rdf:Seq;
>   rdf:_1 [ p:q "bla2". ];
>   rdf:_2 [ p:q "bla2". ].
> ].

Well, there is a way, which is to explicitly say rdf:_1, etc... I know
it's ugly, but I'm starting to really worry about the _: notation. It
doesn't seem good to me.

> I think it would be *very* important to start with the RDFa syntax doc
> that would then hopefully lead to new implementations. All the
> implementations out there (like the trplr one that I testes a few days
> ago) rely on the old version.

I think we will do this in parallel, at least with one implementation
(mine). Thanks for keeping track of all of these developments!

-Ben
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 15:37:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT