W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > April 2012

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

From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:17:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGR+nnG1pRx_nC=1Q7tk-QLKsOE8vdcZHWJof4XRLq9SNxxn2A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alan Jeffrey <ajeffrey@bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-rdfa@w3.org
Hi Alan,

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Alan Jeffrey <ajeffrey@bell-labs.com>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> In our RDFa-annotated XML we have been using just the @resource, @rel and
> @href attributes for expressing hyperlinks, for example in RDFa 1.0:
>
>  <foo xmlns:ex="http://example.com/**ns# <http://example.com/ns#>"
>   resource="http://example.com/**foo <http://example.com/foo>">
>     <link rel="ex:bar" href="http://example.com/baz"/**>
>  </foo>
>
> which generates the expected RDF from the 1.0 distiller:
>
>  <rdf:RDF><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.com/**foo<http://example.com/foo>
> ">
>    <ex:bar rdf:resource="http://example.**com/baz <http://example.com/baz>
> "/>
>  </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
>
> but the 1.1 distiller generates different output (the @about value has
> changed):
>
>  <rdf:RDF><rdf:Description rdf:about="">
>    <ex:bar rdf:resource="http://example.**com/baz <http://example.com/baz>
> "/>
>  </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
>
> 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.
>

In your particular example, the issue at hand is with @resource setting (or
not setting) the new subject, the object is always set by @href in the
enclosed link element.


>
> Is this a deliberate non-backward-compatible change? Why doesn't @resource
> always set the current object resource?
>

I'm not 100% sure which "distiller" you are talking about, but given that
Gregg's does not allow to choose between RDFa version explicitly, I'm
assuming you are talking about Ivan's parser at
http://www.w3.org/2012/pyRdfa/

I agree it is strange to have two different behaviors here based on the
host language (see Oskar's email). According to the new EARL report Gregg
just sent, pyRDFa passes all the XML tests (
http://rdfa.info/earl-reports/#xml), are we missing a test here perhaps?

Ivan is traveling at the moment but I'm sure he will shed some light as
soon as he can.

Steph.


>
> Cheers,
>
> Alan Jeffrey.
>
>
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 01:18:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 April 2012 01:18:08 GMT