Re: Last Call Response to ISSUE-73: RDFa Profile management

I'm confused.  In XHTML+RDFa section 3, Additional Processing Rules, it 
says:

> XHTML+RDFa uses two profiles by default - first incorporating the 
> XML+RDFa profile document |http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1|, and 
> then incorporating the RDFa Profile at 
> |http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1|.

Isn't that what you wanted?

On 3/2/2011 3:16 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Sigh, I feel like a ping-pong ball.
>
> Looking at the latest drafts
>
> - I see the sentence you describe below listed in the RDFa Core document (which is fine with me, b.t.w.)
> - Looking at the XHTML+RDFa version, under section 5.2, it says:
>
> [[[
> This specification provides a default RDFa Profile. It is available at http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1.
> ]]]
>
> (as an aside: why is this section non-normative?)
>
> This means that, when processing XHTML, a processor must not refer to the the /profile/rdfa-1.1 one, because that is the XML profile. Putting it another way, in order to work properly, the content of rdfa-1.1 (the bunch of prefixes) should be added to the html-rdfa-1.1. This is not what I said in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0182.html
>
> and what Manu agreed with in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0184.html
>
> and which was a reaction on Manu's mail in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0180.html
>
> which was accepted by Shane in
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0181.html
>
> So where are we now? We should either say in the XHTML+RDFa document that the XHTML includes _both_ profiles (which is allowed per the text you propose), or we have to agree that the effective profile files would duplicate content.
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On Mar 2, 2011, at 01:07 , Manu Sporny wrote:
>
>> On 03/01/2011 03:22 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> Sorry to continue on this thread, but...  in RDFa Core we say:
>>>
>>>> The Host Language /may/ define a default RDFa Profile. If it does, the
>>>> RDFa Profile triples that establish term or URI mappings associated
>>>> with that profile /must not/ change without changing the profile URI.
>>>> RDFa Processors /may/ embed, cache, or retrieve the RDFa Profile
>>>> triples associated with that profile.
>>> We do not say 'the host language may define a bunch of profiles and
>>> require they all be read in a certain order'.  Is that what we want to
>>> say?   I have to say that I really hate that.
>> Shane and I had a quick chat over Skype to hash some things out about
>> the paragraph above... I think we settled on this language that Shane
>> proposed:
>>
>> """
>> The Host Language MAY require the automatic inclusion of one or more
>> default RDFa Profiles.  If it does, the RDFa Profile triples that
>> establish term or URI mappings MUST NOT change without changing the
>> associated profile URI.  RDFa Processors MAY embed, cache, or retrieve
>> the RDFa Profile triples associated with that profile.
>> """
>>
>> -- manu
>>
>> -- 
>> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
>> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>> blog: Towards Universal Web Commerce
>> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/01/31/web-commerce/
>>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com