W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Resolving remaining issues in the issue tracker

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 22:29:23 -0500
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D82CF25A-6AA4-4D6F-8BA5-D390364E748C@greggkellogg.net>
On Jan 9, 2013, at 6:49 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 01/07/2013 03:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> So I believe XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is all right as it is, and the 
>> formulation added by Gregg to HTML5+RDFa is the right one.
> 
> I disagree. We have a resolution that disagrees with the statement
> above. :)
> 
> We got rid of these special rules because it is unnecessary in many of
> the use cases and is confusing to authors. We got rid of them because we
> wanted to reduce the number of magic subjects in RDFa 1.1. If we want to
> change this at this point, we can do that per the process. We'll have to
> re-open the issue because we closed it with a resolution:
> 
> RESOLVED: Modify HTML+RDFa and XHTML+RDFa to modify processing
> steps #5 and #6 from assuming an empty @about value to assuming
> that new subject is set to the parent object.

Yes, what this did was change the old behavior which had an implicit @about="" on <head> and <body>, which is what would lead to the problem. The new text specifically says to set the new subject from the parent object. Without this text, if you had typeof="schema:WebPage", in step 5, it would allocate a new BNode, and you'd get the following:

[ a schema:WebPage ] .

where what is desired is

<> a schema:WebPage .

That's why a special rule is necessary here in step 5 and in step 6.

[[[
	 In section 7.5, processing step 5, if no IRI is provided by a resource attribute (e.g., @about, @href, @resource, or @src), then first check to see if the element is the head or body element. If it is, then act as if the new subject is set to the parent object.
]]]

This wording is entirely consistent with our resolution, and without it, would lead to the undesirable effect of using a BNode. In RDFa 1.0, you (mostly) got this effect, because there was an implicit @about="", which typically is the same as parent object, but could obviously be different.

I think the text should go back in.

Gregg

> -- manu
> 
> PS: I removed Gregg's text in the latest HTML+RDFa 1.1 spec because it
> was not aligned with the resolution that we had made before. I also
> think that the text in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 is wrong and we need an errata on
> it, unless we're going to re-open this issue and discuss it again.
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Problem with RDF and Nuclear Power
> http://manu.sporny.org/2012/nuclear-rdf/
> 
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 03:30:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC