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

Updated Editor's Draft

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:51:59 -0500
Message-ID: <4EA051AF.90306@aptest.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org

I have updated our source document and am preparing to push an Editor's 
Draft into date space.  However, in completing my action about 
namespaced attributes, I was forced to make a decision about the prose 
that was not explicitly discussed by the working group.  If you look at 
[1] you will see:

>       4.3XML+RDFa Document Conformance
> This specification does not define a stand-alone document type. The 
> attributes herein are intended to be integrated into other host 
> languages (e.g., HTML+RDFa or XHTML+RDFa). However, this 
> specification*does*define processing rules for generic XML documents - 
> that is, those documents delivered as media 
> types|text/xml|or|application/xml|. Such documents must meet all of 
> the following criteria:
>  1. The document/must/be well-formed as defined in [XML10-4e
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#bib-XML10-4e>].
>  2. The document/must/use the attributes defined in this specification
>     through references to the XHTML namespace
>     (|http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml|).
> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so via 
> the followinginitial context 
> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-initial-context>:
>  1. There is no default collection of terms.
>  2. There are no default IRI mappings.
>  3. There is no default vocabulary IRI.
>  4. Thebase
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-base>can
>     be set using the@xml:baseattribute as defined in [XML10-4e
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#bib-XML10-4e>].
>  5. Thecurrent language
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-current-language>can
>     be set using@xml:langattribute.

Note that this now says that in a generic document, RDFa attributes MUST 
be referenced in a qualified manner.  Since this is a generic XML 
document, we cannot assume that unqualified attributes (ones in 'no 
namespace') are actually relevant to RDFa.  A generic XML document can 
have ANY elements and attributes (consider private XML structures) and 
adding RDFa semantics to them has to be qualified so there is no 
possibility of a collision.  For example, my Real Estate Annotation 
Language (REAL) might have a property attribute 
(property="residential"), but clearly that is not the same as @xh:property.

I trust this restriction is consistent with what everyone was thinking 
in the call.


Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 16:52:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:53 UTC