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

Is RDFa Lite a subset of RDFa Core or is it meant to be a separate standard?

From: Grant Robertson <grantsr@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:31:42 -0700
To: "'Gregg Kellogg'" <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "'RDFa WG'" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EA1C274C9A3B47CAAFFC1DDD96C567B9@grantdesk>
Gregg,

Though this is likely a moot point, I do not see how something as radical as
saying that @vocab does not apply to @rel would be "in keeping with RDFa 1.1
Lite principles." I was under the assumption that RDFa Lite was intended to
act as a stepping stone to RDFa Core. A subset of Core that is easier to
learn and still has a lot of the functionality. At least this is what the
documents about RDFa Lite, which I have read, say. However, you seem to
believe that a fundamental principle of RDFa Lite is to behave entirely
differently from RDFa Core. That RDFa Lite should "stand apart" from RDFa
Core. Please tell me I am wrong here.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net] 
>
> > Gregg, you essentially proposed to remove @rel from the 
> effect of @vocab in HTML5+RDFa. This is, in my view, really 
> throwing the baby out with the bath water at this point. We 
> know that there are genuine use case for the usage of @rel 
> (beyond  RDFa Lite) and I cannot simply explain to any user 
> why @vocab would become unusable for that. It would make 
> @vocab much less usable.
> 
> Yes, this was sort of a "Thermo-Nuclear" option, that does go 
> too far, but is in keeping with RDFa 1.1 Lite principles.
Received on Thursday, 26 April 2012 06:38:39 GMT

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