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

Re: Default value for @about depending on language [Re: Non-XHTML host languages for RDFa]

From: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:46:13 +0100
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa Developers <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200912011146.14142.ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>
Dear Toby, Ivan, all,

  thanks for your comments!  Indeed I agree with Ivan that it makes sense to
stick to @about, as normal RDFa processors currently support it that way, and
one of our main points in using RDFa at all was the wide support for it.

While we will also publish XHTML+RDFa documents _generated_ from our OMDoc
documents on the web (will be online in a few days from now), which contain
even more RDFa extracted from our markup than those metadata for which we use
RDFa in the _input_ syntax (i.e. OMDoc), the OMDoc sources will also be
online.  Then, we'd risk spreading inconsistencies, if crawlers parsed both
the RDFa in OMDoc, not knowing about implicit @about's, and the generated
XHTML+RDFa with spec-conforming @about's.  Therefore, we are indeed thinking
about having editors and other tools support the user in creating those --
seemingly redundant -- @about's.

2009-12-01 10:53 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>:
> At the moment, the rdfa distiller has a flag on whether it is XML or
> HTML, essentially taking care of things like xml:base and possibly
> existing RDF/XML portions. I would hate to have to have all kinds of
> different options for different XML applications...

My current favorite position on that is:  Use @about for now, but hope for
some declarative mechanism that allows us to specify custom parsing rules for
RDFa in different host languages (for which e.g. @profile has been suggested
in the other thread).

BTW, another related question:  When generating XHTML+RDFa from a formal
representation that is already RDF-compatible in itself (e.g. RDF/XML, e.g.
OWL, e.g. OMDoc, …), I suppose that both the original representation and the
XHTML+RDFa should use the same URIs for the same things.  Suppose the original
document, e.g. having the URI doc.omdoc, contains a triple with subject
#resource, and suppose we generate doc.xhtml with RDFa from it.  A naïve
translation might create something like <div about="#resource">, i.e. talk
about a resource doc.xhtml#resource.  But I guess it should rather be <div
about="doc.omdoc#resource">, as the formal concept will stay the same,
regardless of its presentation.  Are there similar experiences from, e.g.,
generating XHTML+RDFa from OWL?

Cheers,

Christoph

-- 
Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701

Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 10:46:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 December 2009 10:46:32 GMT