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

Re: Anyone able to help improve Dublin Core namespace XSLT to support RDFS RDFa?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:20:25 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFqUzoW2i3qZk-GDTY49eqK8axvEE77nQOGte7pqqduXNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: St├ęphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, "hugh@hubns.com" <hugh@hubns.com>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On Thursday, 10 May 2012, St├ęphane Corlosquet wrote:

> If the vocabulary is available as RDF, no need to mess with XSLT.
> Wondering if we could simply import it in neologism. Neologism would need
> some love to output nice RDFa 1.1, but at least that work would serve all
> vocabularies running on neologism, instead of just DC.
>
> Anyone against neologism?
>
Nothing against, though is it maintained?

Issue is all the existing admin/process/workflow. An xslt patch could be
dropped in without replacing everything. Longer term DCMI is looking for a
more general tool, and Neologism may be well worth considering there.

As RDF's first serious user, DC is worth some special case attention...

Dan



> Steph
> On May 10, 2012 4:19 PM, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.net<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'gregg@greggkellogg.net');>>
> wrote:
>
>> Well, I'm not much of an expert on XSLT, but I think I have something
>> that works. I sent a pull request against the dublincore repo:
>> https://github.com/dublincore/website/pull/1. This also includes the
>> commits previously made by hugh.
>>
>> Vast room for improvement.
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> On May 10, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>
>> > I'd be happy to help consult on what needs to be done. I'll try to get
>> the environment going, but I might be more effective as a resource to help
>> resolve issues or provide some direction.
>> >
>> > Checking out the repo now.
>> >
>> > Gregg
>> >
>> > On May 10, 2012, at 9:52 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi folks
>> >>
>> >> I'm talking with Tom Baker of Dublin Core (cc:'d), about improving the
>> >> Dublin Core terms vocabulary documentation.
>> >>
>> >> At the moment, if you try to fetch e.g.
>> >> http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator you end up with RDF/XML
>> >>
>> >> Meanwhile there is a rich and detailed HTML document at
>> >> http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ that describes each of
>> >> these terms.
>> >>
>> >> The HTML is generated using some XSLT-based tools (+ Java Ant build
>> >> machinery etc.). Some time ago, it was posted into Github (with Manu's
>> >> help I believe) and there was a partial effort at adding RDFa.
>> >>
>> >> Since the RDFa 1.1 work is now all-but complete, it would be great to
>> >> migrate DC's documentation to use inline RDFa 1.1 (ideally Lite) for
>> >> per-term documentation, so a single page could be both human and
>> >> machine documentation.
>> >>
>> >> Would anyone here be willing to help get this done? I'm copying Hugh
>> >> Barnes who started some work on this (Hugh - if you're interested in
>> >> picking this up again that would be really great!).
>> >>
>> >> See https://github.com/hughbris/website for the partial RDFa fork;
>> >> https://github.com/dublincore/website for the main branch. Tom has
>> >> some updated config files which he could commit or otherwise pass
>> >> along.
>> >>
>> >> If you check out the repo and have java ant set up, you should be able
>> >> to build the HTML by typing 'ant' then looking at
>> >> build/html/dcmi-terms/index.shtml  ... and then start to figure out
>> >> how it's made by looking at web/xsl/html-dcmiterms.xsl
>> >>
>> >> It would be great to have DC updated for RDFa. Longer term DC is
>> >> looking into a more complete solution for it's vocab management needs.
>> >> The idea here is more of a quick-fix to bring DC into the age of RDFa.
>> >> I'd try it myself but I've my hands full with schema.org and FOAF...
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for any help,
>> >>
>> >> Dan
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 10 May 2012 21:20:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 10 May 2012 21:20:55 GMT