W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Not waiting on browser manufacturers for RDFa 1.1

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 11:15:54 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinaHEfX5so7HNcSqGOrhEe4FGtOsrvahfdXDbJn@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan and Shane,

Shane wrote:
>> For all these reasons, I am convinced that RDFa is the correct format to mandate for RDFa Profiles.

and Ivan wrote:
> I agree.
>
> Note that the current text allows for other RDF serializations to be used, only RDFa is mandatory
> (my implementation allows, beyond RDFa, any serialization format that is usable with the underlying
> RDFLib library). On the other hand, based on the report of the RDF Next Step workshop[1] there is
> a high probability that a new RDF Working Group will standardize a JSON serialization for RDF. If
> this happens, this would automatically ripple to RDF libraries and make the JSON format usable
> for @profile files, too.

I should clarify that one of my main issues has always been with the
use of RDF to express prefix mappings; whether that's using RDFa or
RDF/XML is less important.

So when I talk about a JSON format I'm talking about some simple
name/value pair syntax, that is not RDF.

Related to this, I'd like to reference Michael McEvoy's comments from
another thread [1]:

> From experience I have to run two parsers one to produce a list of prefix mappings
> (whether the profile has been cached or not) these prefix mapings (all of them) then
> have to be injected into a second instance in order to parse the containing RDFa of
> the referring page. I have found downloading a list of prefix mappings from
> http://prefix.cc/popular/all.file.txt and processing that faster at resolving prefixes
> than processing @profile. In short I'd rather not :)

The link Michael provides [2] is to a document that contains simple
name/value pairs for prefix mappings. Obviously he hasn't used JSON,
but it's clear from his comments that although 'parsing RDFa before we
can parse RDFa' does work, it's not a foregone conclusion that it's
something we should do.

Regards,

Mark

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jul/0108.html>
[2] <http://prefix.cc/popular/all.file.txt>
--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Saturday, 17 July 2010 10:16:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT