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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:52:07 +0200
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A71089B3-612F-443A-8D32-7400C935BCAA@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Thanks a lot Mark. What I will propose to the WG is to keep to the current base URI (ie, the XHTML space) for backward compatibility sake. It seems that this would be fine with the IANA...

Thanks again!

Ivan

On Oct 21, 2011, at 01:45 , Mark Nottingham wrote:

> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
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 Friday, 21 October 2011 08:50:45 GMT

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