W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > April 2012

Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:08:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp3FNLSLdDOb7tkMPVcKqONSb4hOV4ErzXngPN72Ar447XGyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
This doesn't feel like a positive step.  I have certainly relied on
the local default vocabulary letting me use my own terms in @rel/@rev
values.  In the particular case of recent HTML applications of RDFa,
I've actually just used "standard" @rel values like "related".  I
expect a triple to be generated for @rel="related".

Now, isn't this a substantive change to RDFa Core 1.1 to ignore empty
expansions of @rel/@rev?  Right now, the specification talks about the
presence of the attribute and doesn't inspect whether the value
actually generated a predicate.  As such, we'd have to go back to CR?

I'm feeling like, more and more, we should just leave it all alone.
If you use @rel and @property on a link, @property doesn't work the
same way.

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> ISSUE-135 (html5 rel values) already goes into this territory. This would expand that issue to deal with the fact that the set of possible HTML5 link relations is not strictly defining, but just saying that undefined terms from @rel (or @rev) are removed, and that @rel is removed, or effectively not used for the processing steps.
>
> So step 5 would be updated to say something like the following:
>
> [[[
> If the current element contains no @rel or @rev attribute, or the @rel or @rev attributes are empty after IRI expansion, then the next step ...
> ]]]
>
>
> Step 6 would have a similar update, to only process if @rel and @rev are not empty after performing IRI expansion.
>
> 7.4.3 General Use of Terms In Attributes would be updated to not look at the local default vocabulary if the property is @rel or @rev.
>
> These updates are expressed in HTML+RDFa 1.1 additional RDFa processing rules.
>
> Gregg
>
> On Apr 24, 2012, at 11:27 AM, Alex Milowski wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>>> Perhaps the way to address unwanted @rel terms expanding because of @vocab is simply to say that, for HTML+RDFa, @vocab is not used to turn terms into IRIs, and so anything that's not a defined term causes the @rel to be dropped.
>>>
>>> This only affects HTML+RDFa 1.1, so does not address a CR change to RDFa 1.1 Core.
>>
>> Wouldn't that mean we'd have to specify changes to the sequence
>> algorithm in the HTML+RDFa 1.1. specification?  Right now, everything
>> is nicely separated and the HTML+RDFa 1.1. specification just sets up
>> an initial context.
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Alex Milowski
>> "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
>> inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
>> considered."
>>
>> Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
>>
>



-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2012 19:08:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:20 GMT