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

Fwd: Questions on the Link Registry for RDFa (ACTION-100)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:43:32 +0200
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <886763C5-ACF6-4D7B-8654-FCE5B5047C88@w3.org>
I am sorry, I used the wrong address, so I have to resend it again... Sorry for the noise

Ivan

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Date: October 20, 2011 17:39:40 GMT+02:00
> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
> Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> Subject: Questions on the Link Registry for RDFa (ACTION-100)
> 
> Mark,
> 
> as you may know, RDFa 1.1 is in its finishing round (the editors' draft is available at [1]). One of the last issues that the group has to decide is how to interpret, when generating RDF, a statement like
> 
> <a rel="author" href="blabla">....</a>
> 
> ie, what RDF predicates should be generated (if any) for the value of @rel. RDFa 1.0 used the rel relations as defined in the XHTML document, and generated a predicate in the xhtml/vocab namespace, e.g.,
> 
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#author
> 
> for all @rel values that XHTML1 defined. For RDFa 1.1, the situation is a little bit complicated, because it is unclear what @rel relations the HTML WG will define for HTML5[2]. It will be different, probably, than the old list.
> 
> On our meeting today, the RDFa WG decided that, instead of any of the HTML specs, we should use the IANA link relation list:
> 
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xml
> 
> which seems to be much more complete than what is in the current HTML document[2] anyway.
> 
> However, there are some details that we should clarify, hence this mail. These are:
> 
> 1. What is the authoritative URI to refer to for this list? Is the URI above all right? We must admit we simply got there via google:-)
> 
> 2. Does IANA have any advice/requirement as for the URI-s to be used when materializing those link relations in RDF? As I said, we used the xhtml/vocab namespace before, and we can certainly continue doing that for most, although the describedby relation already has a URI in the Powder namespace. Or, alternatively, do you guys have fixed URI-s that you'd prefer us to use?
> 
> 3. How frequently do you plan to update this list? 
> 
> I think that is it for now...
> 
> Thanks for your help an advice
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html
> [2] http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#linkTypes
> 
> ----
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
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 Thursday, 20 October 2011 15:42:00 GMT

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