W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2009

more microdata feedback (and corrections)

From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:12:48 +0200
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <PM-GA.20090813121248.4C85.1.1D@semsol.com>

OK, I was a little too quick here. Microdata does not allow tag-style
types. They have to be a URI, a revDNS name, or a pre-defined type 
(vcard etc.). And if I read the spec correctly, then arbitrary itemprop
names are only allowed in *untyped* items, i.e. if I use a URI to type
an item, its itemprops should be URIs (or revDNS names), too. Back in
restricted RDF land here, then, unless I stick to untyped items.

Two related questions:

How do I serialize an untyped item in xhtml5? '<div item></div>' is 
allowed in html5, but for xhtml5, I guess I'd need something like 
'<div item=""></div>'? (OK, Ian just confirmed this via Twitter :)

Am I right that there is no reliable/official way to map from rev
DNS names to URIs and back (and vice versa)? In that case the RDF
community can probably simply ignore the whole revDNS option in 
microdata. RDFers will always serialize RDF terms via microdata's
URI notation in order to not lose round-tripping. No RDF-centric
tutorial would necessarily have to cover the revDNS notation.

The RDF community (or an RDF/HTML5 IG) *could* recommend a selected
revDNS pattern as a shorthand syntax for common vocabularies (rdf, 
rdfs, owl), that compliant µRDF parsers would then support, but my
experience tells me it's not very likely we RDFers would find 
an agreement here. And maybe it would be a bad idea anyway, I find
syntax alternatives in RDFa and RDF/XML rather harm- than helpful.
(And I think that's what Danny meant WRT "uniformly identified"?[1])

A general way forward could be to explore which RDF(a) use cases are 
already covered by the current microdata rules, which ones could be 
supported via a convention on top of the spec (e.g. markup values),
and which ones are not supported at all. Then creating something 
like the RDFa test suite for microdata shouldn't be hard. Writing 
extractors for e.g. PHP or JavaScript should be easy too, I'd 
volunteer for a PHP one.

Cheers,
Benji

[1] http://twitter.com/danja/status/3274643596

--
Benjamin Nowack
http://bnode.org/
http://semsol.com/




/me wrote
>Hi, 
>just to add an alternative view: I've been using eRDF, RDFa, and multiple
>homegrown RDF-in-HTMLs during the last years, none was really satisfying.
>
>Now I've tried microdata and it's actually a very refreshing experience. 
>RDF authoring finally feels like HTML authoring (and not just like an RDF 
>syntax that partly looks like HTML). I definitely want a prefix mechanism 
>in SPARQL and Turtle, but in practical *HTML*-based apps (especially 
>semwebby ones where data is pulled in from remote sources and users are 
>enabled to interact with the data inline), they simply suck. Not only
>in terms of complexity, but also for server-side efficiency in publishing
>systems. As I wrote elsewhere, it takes some time (and practical projects)
>to a) realize that fact, and b) to admit it (at least if you are used to 
>RDF formats).
>
>Apart from the prefix (non-)issue, I discovered a lot of unexpected nice
>things about microdata. Accessing data items and interacting with them 
>through JavaScript/AJAX is amazingly easy (just find the parent @item),
>in contrast to RDFa, whose possible syntax variations always made me feel
>unsafe about my app's behaviour.
>
>But the really great thing is the ability to blend Web 2.0-style 
>semantics with RDF ones. RDF is awesome for agile software development
>(on-the-fly schema creation and evolution), but you still lose time 
>thinking about type and predicate URIs. Unlike other RDF syntaxes, 
>Microdata lets me define preliminary/local types and predicates, because 
>URIs are not mandatory and non-URI-tokens will be auto-grounded in 
>"..custom#" or "../vocab#" for the time being. Instant RDF which I can 
>already aggregate, query, and post-process to map it to my app's 
>selection of RDF vocabularies. This is nothing less than folksonomy-style
>semantic publishing. (Read that last sentence again, this is huge.)
>
>The only thing I'm still missing is the ability to have plain literals
>and also literals with markup. I don't need full datatyping, I just want
>to efficiently create backups from my published posts, or possibly from
>other sites, without losing links and formatting. My idea so far is
>to use a special item type, a @class=markup (or somesuch), or possibly
>the existing HTML5/Atom means, like <article /> to tell the parser that
>markup should be preserved for the current @itemprop, e.g.:
>
>...
><div itemprop="raw-content" class="markup">
>   <p>...</p>
>   <p>...</p>
></div>
>...
>
>...
><div itemprop="raw-content" item="CDATA|Literal">
>   <p>...</p>
>   <p>...</p>
></div>
>...
>
>The special item type would be similar to how the pre-semweb ontology 
>editors worked (literals as first-class resources) but I'd still prefer
>a more official way, or a communiy-wide agreement (RDF/HTML5, anyone?).
>
>Side note: the RDF community could probably use the reverse DNS
>notation for the 10 or 20 core vocabularies, too, to simplify
>RDF-in-HTML publishing for a wide range of use cases (and authors).
>There are quite some opportunities around microdata that we should 
>have a closer look at.
>
>So, before you dismiss microdata, maybe ask yourself if your arguments
>are mainly politically motivated, and, more important, build an app with
>it first before you argue in favor of other solutions. You might be 
>surprised.
>
>Cheers,
>Benji
>
>--
>Benjamin Nowack
>http://bnode.org/
>http://semsol.com/
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 10:13:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 August 2009 10:13:27 GMT