Re: P3P in RDFa?

On 29/1/09 11:57, Steven Pemberton wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 10:56:52 +0100, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
>> This is wf XHTML but somehow the little bit of RDFa I've tried writing
>> (from memory) there isn't parsing with raptor/librdfa. I don't have
>> time to experiment today so thought I'd throw this out for
>> consideration in its current form. Help very much welcomed.
>
> Looks like you got your xmlns: prefixes wrong (late night hacking? :-) ):

Pre-coffee hacking. But it goes to show how this Web thing will Never 
Work, I guess. Wishing for more helpful parser error messages someday - 
that would make all the difference. Maybe we should collect up a list of 
common screwups like these, and try to get them coded into popular 
parsers / validators. (Nice student project, if anyone is looking...?).

> <p xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
>
>> I like the idea of having some easy XHTML templates that also count as
>> P3P. Does it sound plausible to anyone else?
>
> Absolutely brilliant idea.

Ta. I guess to be really plausible it will need wizard-based 
editor/authoring tools, but I'm sure such things existed at one point 
for P3P. In fact I know they do, I'm just not sure which is the best one 
to build off - can any P3P experts speak up here?

>> For the eventual markup, the p3p-in-rdf stuff is rather verbose in
>> rdfa, I'd suggest at least having shorter property names.
>
> Well, at the cost of more prefixes, you could mitigate it slightly with:
>
> xmlns:p3pphone="http://www.w3.org/2002/01/p3prdfv1#business.contact-info.telecom.telephone."
>

Clever, though I guess given the non-deployment of the P3P RDF format, a 
reworking with shorter property names might be better value.

> Telephone: <span property="p3pphone:intcode">1</span>
> <span property="p3pphone:loccode">888</span>
> <span property="p3pphone:number">928-8932</span>.

Maybe this contact stuff could even be another namespace, I'm not sure 
if there's a need for it to be all in the P3P vocab these days. And 
there's also the POWDER angle to consider. But for a first cut I'll try 
to make a 100% literalist version of the example file. Won't be this 
week though. If anyone else wants to run with this, be my guest...

cheers,

Dan

--
http://danbri.org/

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 21:18:38 UTC