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.


> -- 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