... yesterday. The public-rdfa mailing list is of course still active; the public-rdfa-wg mailing list will also be closed. It was a long road... but a good one. Thanks to all! Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
See below. With this our last official business for this group is done. W3M should officially close the WG (its charter has long expired, b.t.w.). Thanks for all the work on these now and in the past. I believe we had a good time:-) Ivan > Begin forwarded message: > > Date: 17 Mar 2015 19:48:35 CET > To: w3c-ac-forum@w3.org > From: "Coralie Mercier" <coralie@w3.org> > Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/op.xvnnu9lgsvvqwp@sith.local> > Resent-From: w3c-ac-members@w3.org > Subject: RDFa 1.1 is a W3C Recommendation > List-Id: <w3t.w3.org> > > > Dear Advisory Committee Representative, > > I am pleased to announce the advancement of four RDFa 1.1 documents to Recommendations: > > HTML+RDFa 1.1 - Second Edition > http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-html-rdfa-20150317/ > > RDFa Core 1.1 - Third Edition > http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-rdfa-core-20150317/ > > RDFa Lite 1.1 - Second Edition > http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-rdfa-lite-20150317/ > > XHTML+RDFa 1.1 - Third Edition > http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-xhtml-rdfa-20150317/ > > > All Members who responded to the Call for Review [1] of the Proposed Recommendations except one supported the publication of those specifications as W3C Recommendations. One Member, Yandex, objected saying the conformance section for RDFa Lite 1.1 - Second Edition <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/RDFa11-PER/results#xspec3> was too minimal. > > The non-normative section 2 of the specification indicates the RFDa Lite attributes are conformant to the ones defined in RDFa Core 1.1 <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core> and also pre-defines a number of prefixes, but this is not reflected adequately in normative section 3.1, Document Conformance. However, the changes in the Proposed Edited Recommendation did not affect the conformance section and that section remains identical to the previously published Recommendation. Accordingly, it is still appropriate to update the Recommendation. The two issues are noted as errata in the status section in the new Recommendation and W3C is expected to address these errata in a future update per Process 2014, as the changes to the conformance section would not introduce new features. > > Please join us in thanking the RDFa Working Group [2] for their hard work and congratulating them on this achievement. > > This announcement follows section 8.1.2 [3] of the W3C Process Document. > > For Tim Berners-Lee, Director, > Ralph Swick, Information and Knowledge Domain Lead, and > Ivan Herman, RDFa Working Group Team Contact; > Coralie Mercier, Acting Head of W3C Marketing & Communications > > [1] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/RDFa11-PER/results > [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/ > [3] https://www.w3.org/2014/Process-20140801/#ACReviewAfter > > -- > Coralie Mercier - W3C Communications Team - http://www.w3.org > mailto:coralie@w3.org +336 4322 0001 http://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/ > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Greetings to all, and hope you can give me answers or suggestions. I was reviewing the spec about RDFa core and I focused on a frequent use case in my models. Sometimes I use <data> element to indicate price values for internationalisation and machine-readability. For user readability currencies can be indicated with symbols, decimal separators with commas and there could be spaces or single quotes to separate thousands, but it's not an acceptable value. So a price of € 1'234,56 could be set as follows: <data value="EUR">€</data> <data value="1234.56">1'234,56</data> I often use Schema.org class vocabularies for semantic markup as this allows to specify the price entity by also separating numbers and currency. I also want to use RDFa for semantic markup. I know that I could specify @content in order to indicate the machine readable value, but I'd like to know whether @value could ever be taken into account as attribute to look at for content of some properties. It would also be useful on ordered lists, as @value on list items can be used to force an item number in the list, and it could have a semantic meaning (e.g. the number of an item in a collection of creative works), or even on form elements (e.g. when used as readonly). Is there any hope for this?
LDQ 2015 CALL FOR PAPERS 2nd Workshop on Linked Data Quality co-located with ESWC 2015, Portorož, Slovenia June 1, 2015 http://ldq.semanticmultimedia.org/ <http://ldq.semanticmultimedia.org/> /*News flash: Invited talk by Prof.Dr.Felix Naumann on "Brave new data, revisited"*//* */http://ldq.semanticmultimedia.org/program/keynote_felix_naumann <http://ldq.semanticmultimedia.org/program/keynote_felix_naumann> *Important Dates* * Submission of research papers: March 16, 2015 * Notification of paper acceptance: April 9, 2015 * Submission of camera-ready papers: April 30, 2015 Since the start of the Linked Open Data (LOD) Cloud, we have seen an unprecedented volume of structured data published on the web, in most cases as RDF and Linked (Open) Data. The integration across this LOD Cloud, however, is hampered by the ‘publish first, refine later’ philosophy. This is due to various quality problems existing in the published data such as incompleteness, inconsistency, incomprehensibility, etc. These problems affect every application domain, be it scientific (e.g., life science, environment), governmental, or industrial applications. We see linked datasets originating from crowdsourced content like Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap such as DBpedia and LinkedGeoData and also from highly curated sources e.g. from the library domain. Quality is defined as “fitness for use”, thus DBpedia currently can be appropriate for a simple end-user application but could never be used in the medical domain for treatment decisions. However, quality is a key to the success of the data web and a major barrier for further industry adoption. Despite the quality in Linked Data being an essential concept, few efforts are currently available to standardize how data quality tracking and assurance should be implemented. Particularly in Linked Data, ensuring data quality is a challenge as it involves a set of autonomously evolving data sources. Additionally, detecting the quality of datasets available and making the information explicit is yet another challenge. This includes the (semi-)automatic identification of problems. Moreover, none of the current approaches uses the assessment to ultimately improve the quality of the underlying dataset. The goal of the Workshop on Linked Data Quality is to raise the awareness of quality issues in Linked Data and to promote approaches to assess, monitor, maintain and improve Linked Data quality. The workshop*topics*include, but are not limited to: * Concepts * - Quality modeling vocabularies * Quality assessment * - Methodologies * - Frameworks for quality testing and evaluation * - Inconsistency detection * - Tools/Data validators * Quality improvement * - Refinement techniques for Linked Datasets * - Linked Data cleansing * - Error correction * - Tools * Quality of ontologies * Reputation and trustworthiness of web resources * Best practices for Linked Data management * User experience, empirical studies *Submission guidelines* We seek novel technical research papers in the context of Linked Data Quality with a length of up to 8 pages (long) and 4 pages (short) papers. Papers should be submitted in PDF format. Other supplementary formats (e.g. html) are also accepted but a pdf version is required. Paper submissions must be formatted in the style of the Springer Publications format for Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS). Please submit your paper via EasyChair at https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ldq2015 <https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ldq2015>. Submissions that do not comply with the formatting of LNCS or that exceed the page limit will be rejected without review. We note that the author list does not need to be anonymized, as we do not have a double-blind review process in place. Submissions will be peer reviewed by three independent reviewers. Accepted papers have to be presented at the workshop. *Organizing Committee* * Anisa Rula – University of Milano-Bicocca, IT * Amrapali Zaveri – AKSW, University of Leipzig, DE * Magnus Knuth – Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, DE * Dimitris Kontokostas – AKSW, University of Leipzig, DE