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

Re: took a quick stab..

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 19:51:11 +0200
Cc: RDFA Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <8F20AA0A-1D14-4998-B367-DAC3FD27C149@w3.org>
To: nathan@webr3.org
I had a quick look at it already (G+...:-) and I think this goes way too far in stripping down RDFa. The removal of @prefix, I think, would be a mistake. So would be the removal of @datatype. 

The question is what is what we want to achieve. If the goal is to reproduce the schema.org examples and only marginally more, then of course that is fine, although MD is also fine, isn't it? But if I want, say, to mix my personal home page with the generation of a foaf file, and I do more than just trivial statements, then this would break down (and so would MD, essentially). Similarly, if I want to use an HTML file to be both the documentation and the definition of a vocabulary (not a stand alone, isolated vocabulary, but one that would rely and refer to other vocabularies), then again we are out. These are all genuine use cases that RDFa is supposed to serve. MD does not serve those (nor did then intend to, so that is understandable).

Also: we seem to have thrown out profiles, including default profiles. This means that yet another use case, namely the acceptance of FB statements, has gone down the drain (that was the main motivation for default profiles, wasn't it?)

So... I am not sure what this level would achieve...

Ivan



On Jul 30, 2011, at 19:02 , Nathan wrote:

> at seeing what an RDFa+Microdata mix might be like:
> 
>  http://www.w3.org/wiki/Microdata_RDFa_Merge
> 


----
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
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 17:49:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:17 GMT