Re: Different treatment of @resource between RDFa 1.0 and 1.1

Alan,

> but the 1.1 distiller generates different output (the @about value
> has changed):

two distillers, three tries, two results:

I) http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller
Result:
<http://example.com/foo> ex:bar <http://example.com/baz> .

II) http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/
Host language = HTML5 + RDFa 
Result:
<http://example.com/foo> ex:bar <http://example.com/baz> .

III)  http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/
Host language = XML + RDFa 
Result:
<> ex:bar <http://example.com/baz> .


> Digging through the 1.1 spec (Sec 7.5, processing rule 5) it looks like 
> the distiller is doing the right thing: the @resource attribute only 
> sets the current object resource when there's an @rel, @rev or @property 
> attribute.

This is just for my own understanding, my last post here shows I have
problems understanding this myself, but: The way I read it, the
@resource in your example *does* set a new subject:

<foo xmlns:ex="http://example.com/ns#"
resource="http://example.com/foo">
   <link rel="ex:bar" href="http://example.com/baz"/>
</foo>

According to 7.5, 5., alt. 2:
<foo xmlns:ex="http://example.com/ns#"
resource="http://example.com/foo">
contains no @rel/@rev (therefore, we're in 5.) and no @property (we're
in alternative 2), and does have @resource: Set new subject to
@resource.
(Grant's table: [New subject] in "Everything Else Mode".)

According to 7.5, 6.:
<link rel="ex:bar" href="http://example.com/baz"/>
contains @rel (that's why we're in 6.) but nothing that would match a
"set new subject"-rule; so we keep "http://example.com/foo" from the
parent as the subject. The object resource is taken from @href according
to this processing rule.
(Grant's table: [Current object resource] in "rel | rev mode")

Reads 
<http://example.com/foo> ex:bar <http://example.com/baz> . 
to me.



Cheers,
Oskar

Received on Sunday, 22 April 2012 20:47:00 UTC