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

Re: ISSUE-1 compare and contrast Vocabularies and Profiles proposals

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:34:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4B8F7E8B.9020508@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>


On 2010-3-4 05:22 , Manu Sporny wrote:
> Ivan has already compared/contrasted the vocabulary proposal[1] and
> profiles proposal[2] in a previous thread[3]. I'll try and highlight the
> differences using less words and in a way that may help those that
> aren't heavily involved in this area to grasp the core differences
> between the current proposals. The hope is that this list will drive
> discussion on ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-11:
> 
> Vocabulary Proposal[1]:
> 
> * Use @vocab attribute to extend reserved keywords
> * @vocab document marked up in RDFa
> * @vocab document uses "rdfa:" vocabulary to express reserved keywords
> * Last reserved word definition wins
> * There is no default RDFa vocabulary
> * Does not support recursive inclusion of other @vocabs

Is this explicitly said? I am not sure this restriction is necessary
(though it is safe, of course)

> * Does not depend on @profile being re-instated in HTML5
> * Does not address ISSUE-11
> * Requires CORS support for Javascript implementations

I am not sure what this means...

> 
>
I think that, in its current format, this proposal contains keyword->uri
mappings. Ie, no format for prefix declaration


> Profiles Proposal[2]:
> 
> * Use @profile attribute to extend reserved words AND declare prefixes
> * @profile document marked up in RDFa or JSON
> * @profile document uses "xmlns:" to express reserved words/prefixes
> * Last reserved word/prefix definition wins
> * There is no default RDFa profile
> * Supports recursive inclusion of other @profiles
> * Depends on @profile being re-instated in HTML5
> * Does not address ISSUE-11
> * Requires CORS support for profiles that are not specified in JSON
> 

(if my understanding is correct, Mark may correct me) This is based on
the definition prefix declarations, ie, can be used on both; but
requires a slight change on the way CURIE-s are interpreted in RDFa.

> Items that are in neither proposal that we should consider supporting:
> 
> * There should be a default RDFa vocabulary/profile
> * The default RDFa vocabulary/profile should only be used when there is
>   no active @vocab/@profile.
> * Default profile would address ISSUE-11
> 
> Is this a complete list of each proposal's key points as well as the
> more recent concerns with ISSUE-11 that have been raised?
> 
> -- manu
> 
> [1]http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa-vocab-20100111.html
> [2]http://webbackplane.com/mark-birbeck/blog/2010/02/vocabularies-token-bundles-profiles-rdfa
> [3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Feb/0090.html
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf



Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 09:33:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT