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

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

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:45:56 +1100
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <685EC6AB-B220-4EBB-AF7A-B6DC1CCC516E@mnot.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

On 21/10/2011, at 2:42 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> 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:-)

Yes. When we do 5988bis, it should include the URL.


> 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?

Nothing fixed; probably the IANA URIs make sense, but you could certainly define something else as a base.


> 3. How frequently do you plan to update this list? 

It's a living document; as we get requests, we'll update it. 

Note also that there's an effort underway to make web-related IANA registries easier to use [1]. This should improve its coverage, over time. It also might be good to ask this question there, and/or on the link-relations list.

Cheers,


1. http://www.w3.org/wiki/FriendlyRegistries


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 20 October 2011 23:46:24 GMT

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