Re: Updated Editor's Draft

The last date space editor's draft [5] says this:

> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so in 
> the following context:
>
>  1. There is no default collection of terms.
>  2. There are no default IRI mappings. @@@@ is this correct? If not,
>     we should define the mappings in an appendix or an RDFa Profile
>     document. -spm @@@@
>  3. There is no default vocabulary IRI.
>  4. Thebase
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/ED-rdfa-core-20110814/#T-base>can
>     be set using the@xml:baseattribute as defined in [XML10-4e
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/ED-rdfa-core-20110814/#bib-XML10-4e>].
>  5. Thecurrent language
>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/ED-rdfa-core-20110814/#T-current-language>can
>     be set using@xml:langattribute.
>

I asked the question and apparently didn't get an answer, so I made one up!

On 10/20/2011 3:25 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> 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

[5] 
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/ED-rdfa-core-20110814/#xmlrdfaconformance 


-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120