W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > April 2010

Re: rdf:XMLLiteral and the RDF namespace

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:16:16 +0100
Message-ID: <q2g640dd5061004290316w2a340927z887293b0a1f92cbb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, "Hondros, Constantine" <Constantine.Hondros@wolterskluwer.com>, "public-rdfa@w3.org" <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

>> But now that RDFa 1.1 has a more cohesive story about about CURIEs and
>> tokens being applied consistently across all of our attributes, we
>> should consider creating an 'xmlliteral' token to sit alongside
>> 'next', 'prev', 'license', etc.
>>
>
> But this is not only an rdf:XMLLiteral issue, is it?

That's true, but rdf:XMLLiteral is the only data type that is referred
to in the processing rules. It does therefore have a special position
in RDFa.


> If the XHTML code contains an explicit
> @datatype="xsd:integer", this also requires the definition of the xsd prefix. Do you mean
> that we should define a term for all the XSD datatypes?

No, I wasn't suggesting that...but now you say it, I don't think it's
such a bad idea. :) At the very least, we should consider defining
some basic types, such as integers and dates.


> There is quite a load of them, and
> there is a danger that those terms would clash with terms used elsewhere (remember that
> we do not have any association that says that a specific term can be used with a specific
> attribute only...)

That's true, although I'm not sure what the scenarios would be where
we clash with tokens that people have defined, such as 'integer',
'date', etc.


> We had some discussion about defining default prefixes. One possibility would be to say
> that prefixes for all standard W3C URIs vocabularies are automatically defined by default,
> ie, rdf, rdfs, skos, owl, xsd, powder (I may forget some). The inclusion of non-standard
> prefixes like foaf, dc, or cc, might be more touchy in terms of (social) process, but I do not
> see any issue with standard w3c vocabularies...

That's also a way to go, but forgive me for saying that I don't think
it aims high enough.

I think we want Microformats-like simplicity in the resulting markup,
and that means we need to exposed complex features in a simple way.
With tokens and @vocab, authors can go a long way without having to
make use of prefix mappings, so I'd like to see us continue in that
direction.

Regards,

Mark

--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane

mark.birbeck@webBackplane.com

http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck

webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 10:16:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:15:06 UTC