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

Re: RDFa Lite and non-RDFa @rel values

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:23:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnH10Z0+69nG7eDSJhvNV0rce_AWqP3qTx+gXNfk_3GJ8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Alex,

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:

> 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".


What do you mean by "standard" @rel values? standard in the context of RDFa
or HTML?



>  I expect a triple to be generated for @rel="related".
>

Most people won't expect this triple to be generated, and they won't expect
the behavior of @property alongside @rel either. In my view your case
qualifies as advanced use of RDFa. Would you also expect a triple in the
case where you had @rel="nofollow" (in the HTML sense)?

Steph.


>
> 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 19:24:10 GMT

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