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

Re: Resolving remaining issues in the issue tracker

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:42:39 +0100
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FB384FDA-864E-45BA-A267-37AD796B2BAB@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
I am fully with Gregg on that one...


On Jan 10, 2013, at 04:29 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:

> 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/

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 08:43:06 UTC

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