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

Re: A new approach to accomplishing RDFa Profiles

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:31:13 -0400
Message-ID: <4BA42561.6040606@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/19/2010 07:06 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> I am not against doing this, but I am really lost with the many terms an
> attribute names we use ourselves, and I am not sure what we are talking
> about any more. (Sorry I could not be the meeting yesterday...). We are
> having now a plethora of things around @token, @profile, @map, @vocab,
> ... and I am lost what is what!

Let's try to simplify it down to proposals that people are actually
willing to adopt and write. At the moment, there seem to be three
general approaches:

* RDFa vocabulary proposal (Ivan/Manu)
* @token proposal (Mark)
* Default prefix proposal (Toby/Martin)

More below...

> 1. we have a proposal to allow @xmlns to define not only prefixes by
> directly keywords (I think that is what Mark is proposing). Ie, @xmlns
> would be a generic mechanism to define, possibly, full URIs)

I don't think that this is solely what Mark is proposing - or rather,
his proposal has more to it than this. So, while this has been discussed
separately at times, it's a part of the @token proposal.

> 2. we have/had a discussion to provide an alternative to the @xmlns
> syntax. The information is still local to the file, and the semantics is
> the same as @xmlns (including the addition above)

Correct. I expect that this approach would be merged into the RDFa
vocabulary proposal and the @token proposal.

> 3. we had a proposal to use a separate attribute to provide a 'default'
> prefix for an xml subtree that could be used for keyword mapping. There
> were discussions whether we should reuse @typeof or use a separate attribute

This is the default prefix proposal.

> 4. we have proposals to refer to an external document, that defines
> keywords and, possibly, prefix mappings. There were discussions whether
> that document should define prefixes in the first place and, if yes,
> whether prefix definition should be separated from keyword definitions;
> there were discussions whether the definition should use some RDF
> vocabulary or whether we would introduce a new (albeit simple) syntax to
> do so in the included documents.

This is a combination of the RDFa vocabulary proposal and the @token
proposal.

I say two proposals because it seems like we're still discussing the
default prefix proposal... but it also seems like there is decent
support for it. Specifically, Martin, Toby, Shane and myself seem to
think that it deserves further consideration.

It's not a big jump to wrap the default prefix proposal into the RDFa
vocabulary proposal, so that may be a way forward.

So, those are the two proposals that could move forward into the RDFa
1.1 FPWD. Thoughts?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/
Received on Saturday, 20 March 2010 01:31:43 GMT

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