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

Re: Updated Editor's Draft

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:25:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4EA083B7.5050208@aptest.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Wow - I completely do not remember that.  I removed that a very long 
time ago - probably when profiles went away.  I personally don't think 
there should be an initial context for XML+RDFa, but mostly that's 
because I feel that if you are using RDFa that way you are going to be 
explicit about everything.

On 10/20/2011 3:14 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>> XML+RDFa never had an initial context in any draft.  If there was a 
>> decision about including one, I missed it.
>
> From [4]:
>
> [[[
> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so in 
> the following context:
>
> 1. The default vocabulary URI is undefined.
> 2. The default collection of terms is defined via an RDFa Profile 
> document at http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1.
> 3. The base can be set using the @xml:base attribute as defined in 
> [XML10-4e].
> 4. The current language can be set using @xml:lang attribute.
> ]]]
>
>> On 10/20/2011 2:10 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> Shane:
>>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>>
>>>> Folks,
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Previously as I recall, RDF Core 1.1 did have a default profile 
>>> applied to all host languages, including XML [2]. This was, in fact, 
>>> where all of the prefixes were defined; XHTML+RDFa defined mostly 
>>> link relation terms. We did decide to keep the default profile, now 
>>> renamed to "initial context". However, I don't see that we decided 
>>> that XML+RDFa would not have such an initial context. Did I miss 
>>> something? (Actually, there's not even an ISSUE recorded for 
>>> removing @profile, just a meeting note [3].
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] 
>>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#xmlrdfaconformance 
>>>>
>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1
>>> [3] 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-07-28#Removing___40_profile
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#xmlrdfaconformance
>>>> -- 
>>>> Shane McCarron
>>>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>>>> +1 763 786 8160 x120
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Shane McCarron
>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>> +1 763 786 8160 x120
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 20:25:59 GMT

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