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

Official Response to ISSUE-124 from RDF Web Apps WG

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 14:15:06 -0500
Message-ID: <4F24493A.3090505@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Paul,

Thank you for your public feedback on the RDFa 1.1 documents. This is an
official response from the RDF Web Apps WG to your issue before we enter
the 3rd Last Call for the RDFa 1.1 work this coming Tuesday. The Last
Call will last for 3 weeks, so there is still time for you to discuss
your concerns if we have not fully addressed them.

Your issue was tracked here:

ISSUE-124: Should HTML + RDFa Lite and HTML+RDFa Document Conformance
requirements be different?
https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/124

Explanation of Issue
--------------------

You had asked us to reconsider the way we were defining document
conformance for RDFa Lite 1.1 across the Host Language specification for
HTML+RDFa 1.1 and HTML+RDFa Lite 1.1.

"""
Section 3.1 "Document Conformance" states: "In order for a document to
claim that it is a conforming HTML+RDFa Lite document".   To me this
means that the RDFa Lite 1.1 specification not only specifies a proper
subset (aka profile) of RDFa 1.1 but it also profiles the HTML + RDFa
Working Draft [1] and provides a new definition of document conformance
for the combination of HTML5 and RDFa 1.1 Lite.

I am not sure if this is the best model.  For example the RDFa 1.1
specification itself does not define "document conformance" but this is
found in the HTML + RDFa Working Draft.  Another alternative instead
would be to define this new document conformance level in the HTML +RDFa
Working Draft by adding a reference from the HTML +RDFa Working Draft to
the RDFa 1.1 Lite specification.    Did you consider this way of
defining the two different "document conformances" for HTML + RDFa and
HTML +RDFa Lite?
"""

Working Group Decision
----------------------

The Working Group considered your issue and agreed that there was an
issue regarding how the documents are linked together. The discussion
can be found here:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-15#ISSUE__2d_124__3a__RDFa_Lite_Document_Conformance

The Working Group made the following resolution:

RESOLVED: RDFa Lite 1.1 will make normative statements about Document
Conformance, but stay silent on RDFa Processor conformance. HTML+RDFa
1.1 will depend on RDFa Core 1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and will make
normative statements both on Document Conformance and RDFa Processor
conformance.

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-15#resolution_2

As a result, the RDFa Lite 1.1 document was updated to contain a
document conformance section:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2012/WD-rdfa-lite-20120131/#document-conformance

The HTML+RDFa 1.1 specification was updated to depend on both RDFa Core
1.1 and RDFa Lite 1.1 and define a set of conformance rules for each
conformance type:

http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#document-conformance
http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/#extensions-to-the-html5-syntax

Feedback
--------

Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, we would
appreciate it if you responded to this e-mail and let us know if the
decision made by the group is acceptable to you as soon as possible.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/
Received on Saturday, 28 January 2012 19:15:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:55 UTC