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

Re: Validation Update: success!

From: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:00:16 +0000
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: CÚdric Mesnage <cedric.mesnage@lu.unisi.ch>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.tuhc6qw6zdej1c@keith-alexanders-computer.local>




On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 01:01:04 +0100, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:

> Keith Alexander wrote:
>> Can I use those DTDs even if I am not using RDFa in the document? It
>> might be handy to use it so I can have @rel, @rev, @href on any element
>> and still validate, but I'd want my document to be parsed according to
>> my GRDDL profile rather than RDFa rules.
>
> I guess you could, but if you use that DTD, you are definitely saying
> that you're using RDFa, so if your syntax triggers and RDFa-prescribed
> triple, you mean it for sure :)
>

So, you would expect a triplr/sponger-like application to read my document  
(with an xhtml+RDFa DTD, but a GRDDL profile that uses different rules),  
parse it for RDFa triples and augment it with the GRDDL'd triples (as if  
the @profile had contained the RDF uri as well), or should one override  
the other?

Personally, I think that if a @profile has actually been declared, it is  
safer for a triplr/sponger to assume that that's *all* it should parse for  
- despite other apparent indications.

This afternoon, for instance, tommorris was asking on #swig  why  
http://triplr.org/rdf/http://tom.opiumfield.com/blog/ threw errors.
It turned out (we think), to be that two rdf:IDs of the same value were  
being generated. In this case, it was because triplr was applying the  
hCard transformation twice - once due to the @profile, and a second time  
on it's own initiative (because it saw a 'vCard' classname ).

I think this could equally have been caused by trying to parse an  
RDFa-look-a-like syntax as RDFa, as well as the GRDDL profile specified.

So if I wrote a document that used a custom GRDDL profile, and an RDFa  
DTD, should the spec (and which spec?) say what my intention should be  
interpreted as RDFa? GRDDL? both? even if both leads to bad RDF?

Yours,


Keith
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 15:35:35 UTC

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