W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Last Call Response to ISSUE-60: XMLLiteral context preservation

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:02:08 -0500
Message-ID: <4D33A320.4020708@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Gregg,

This is an official response from the RDFa Working Group concerning your
comment on prefix preservation during the creation of XMLLiterals:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/60

Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> Is there new wording for RDFa core 1.1 7.5 step 11 on what needs to
> be done for XMLLiteral context preservation? I recall that this was
> essentially going to revert to just xmlns preservation for all
> in-scope definitions.

The RDFa Working Group discussed this issue last week, the discussion is
captured in the minutes:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-13#ISSUE__2d_60__3a__XMLLiteral_context_preservation

The conversation revolved around how complicated the processing rules
would become if we were to preserve everything that could potentially
affect triple processing. That is, in order to re-create the proper
triples, an RDFa processor would need to preserve @xmlns, @prefix,
@profile, @vocab, <base>, and the current subject. Furthermore,
processing would need to be performed on any URL that was relative to
the current document when adding these attributes to the top-most level
of an XMLLiteral.

In general, there was concern that the payback for preserving all of
this state would be minimal and not worth the added complexity to the
specification.

The group decided that the behavior of RDFa 1.0 is sufficient for almost
every use case. That is, only values declared via xmlns: are preserved
in XMLLiterals generated via RDFa Processors.

If a web developer would like to ensure that the same triples are
generated if the XMLLiteral snippet is processed by itself, it is up to
them to include the proper subject, prefixes, and profiles in the
intended XMLLiteral.

Thank you for your feedback and your continued input into the RDFa
Working Group, Gregg. There have been a number of changes and
improvements made due to your feedback over the past and the RDFa
specification is better for it.

Since this is a Last Call issue, we ask that you please respond to this
e-mail and let us know if this solution works for you.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Linked Data in JSON
http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/10/30/json-ld/
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 02:02:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT