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

Re: Agenda for telco, 2011-11-17

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:05:22 +0100
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Message-Id: <CA6AD483-B003-4B55-97EA-793DFBE7316F@w3.org>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>

On Nov 16, 2011, at 21:18 , Jeni Tennison wrote:

> 
> On 16 Nov 2011, at 18:31, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 16:23 , Ivan Herman wrote:
>>>> - ISSUE-113: Add the value attribute of the HTML data element as a possible literal target for property
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/113
>>> 
>>> Yes
>> 
>> +1: This is interesting, as <data @value> is intended to be "machine readable" data, which I interpret to mean having a datatype. It is specifically intended when the machine-readable value is different from a human readable format. This would imply to me that doing a lexical matching over a larger set of XSD datatypes would be appropriate, but it's not called out explicitly.
> 
> 
> My strong feeling is that you shouldn't sniff datatypes based on the content of the value attribute -- it's too magic.

I agree.

> But not giving the value a language would be good.
> 

Ah. I did not think of that detail...


> Jeni
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 09:02:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT