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

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

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:55:00 -0400
To: "grantsr@gmail.com" <grantsr@gmail.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0933A1F8-BAAF-4234-87E1-DC977305799F@greggkellogg.net>
On Apr 25, 2012, at 11:31 PM, "Grant Robertson" <grantsr@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

RDFa Lite will likely become the dominant form of markup, if it is used according to schema.org examples. For some, it may be a stepping stone to the use of full RDFa, but I think that will remain the domain of expert usage for some time.

My point about @vocab, is that it is not part of RDFa Lite, and so potentially restricting the content model of @rel/@rev to not use @vocab would be fine for RDFa Lite purposes.

I certainly wouldn't say that a fundamental principle of RDFa Lite is to behave differently, and indeed I wasn't proposing that it would. RDFa Lite remains a subset of RDFa Core, but all languages change over time, if they are to stay relevant. The combination of @property and @rel was a concession to backwards compatibility, and if we were to do it again, I don't think RDFa would use @rel or @rev, but that is the situation we have.

There are a number of creative ideas being thrown around for how to give the best possible result for people using RDFa with HTML5, this was just one such crazy idea meant to spark some discussion, which it seems to have accomplished.


>> -----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 06:53:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:56 UTC