- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:16:45 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <98339643-1968-47F4-98D2-E2BBA8E359CF@w3.org>
On Mar 28, 2010, at 03:25 , Manu Sporny wrote: > On 03/26/2010 05:32 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: >> So, let me try to reformulate that to see if I understand > > This is mostly correct, minor nits below: > >> - we have the generic @vocab and @profile mechanism > > Yes. > >> - there is no default set of keywords hardcoded in RDFa 1.1 Core > > Yup. > >> - there is no default @vocab or @profile for RDFa 1.1 Core > > We /could/ have a default @vocab/@profile for RDFa 1.1 Core, but allow > the language implementations to override it. Granted this makes little > sense. If we don't do this, then we have to make sure that the languages > that fold in RDFa MUST define @vocab/@profile > Even if we have a default @profile, I think it would be absolutely minimal. My take is that, if we do define prefixes in a @profile, we could add there the prefixes for the W3C Recommendations, ie, prefixes for RDF, RDFS, OWL, XSD, SKOS, but I really do not see anything else meaningful there. And I do not see what keywords one would add there... >> - there is no default set of keywords hardcoded in RDFa 1.1 XHTML > > Yes, but there would be a default @vocab or a default @profile. > Yes, probably. What I meant here is that there should not be some sort of a list of a keywords in the recommendation as we have now, but we should use the mechanism we develop elsewhere. >> - there is no default @profile set for RDFa 1.1. XHTML > > Maybe. We haven't decided whether we care about the junk triples that a > default @vocab would create. If we care about junk triples, then we may > want to opt for a default @profile instead. > Yes, I see the discussion on the mail, and Toby's "Person" example is fairly compelling. Ie, we are not only talking about junk triples but also about case-sensitivity (or not). A default @vocab creates problems there, whereas a default @profile takes care of all that... > The difference is that a default @profile would only create triples for > keyword values that it knows exist. Granted, an RDFa processor could > hard-code those keyword values as long as it keeps those values up-to-date. > >> - there _is_ a default @vocab, conceptually set on the <html> element, >> which is set to the value of "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#". > > Maybe. See above. Yeah, probably not:-( > >> The issue I >> see is how various RDFa processors would know about those defaults. For >> the (X)HTML case I would probably look at the suffix and/or the media >> type and 'hardwire' the default that way; that could also work for other >> XML dialects that happen to have a dedicated suffix and media type... > > We could say: > > 1. Look at the MIME type first if that is available. > 2. If the MIME type is not available, look at the file extension. > 3. If neither exist, assume RDFa Core's default @vocab/@profile. > There is still a problem of where one would register the default @profile for a specific mime type. We could set up some sort of a registry for that at W3C, but it all becomes fairly complicated:-( Sigh... Ivan > -- 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/ > ---- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Monday, 29 March 2010 10:15:28 UTC