Re: Why is there no RDFa syntax working draft?

Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>> Please publish the draft so I can criticise it!
>>
>> I'm uncomfortable with literal value inspection as the notation for
>> indicating type. It makes round-tripping hard. I could have a load of
>> data, all of which in my source database used XMLLiteral as a type, even
>> if only some of the values (currently) had markup in them. I can
>> reasonably compose SPARQL queries that pull out these as XMLLiterals. If
>> I push that data out into RDFa, my literals will sometimes end up
>> XMLLiteral, and sometimes plain Literal, in the process perhaps
>> acquiring language tags from the HTML context. When parsed back into a
>> database, I'm left with significantly mangled data.
> 
> Dan,
> 
> this was a long discussion, and fairly passionate one... the precise
> process we have now is at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFa/LiteralObject
> 
> which reflects the consensus we reached after, as I said, long
> discussions. I think the only additional information missing from that
> figure is that @datatype="" yields a plain literal.
> 
> I would be interested what would be your alternative...

That process looks good to me - it was the kind of thing I was
going to suggest, having seen what the various RDFa things of today
were generating, in the absence of a working draft to explain.

Dave