W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2011

Re: RDFa 1.1 Lite

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 21:47:11 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA2209F.8020607@digitalbazaar.com>
To: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 10/21/2011 10:59 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> The question is: is there a need, in your view and based on the
> discussions: to 'formally' define RDFa 1.1 Lite as some sort of a
> 'profile' (oops, I used this ugly term again:-) of RDF 1.1?

I view that depending on a number of factors:

1. Do the implementers feel like there needs to be some official
    document detailing RDFa 1.1 Lite?
2. Do authors feel that they need such a document?
3. If so, does the document need to be normative (with a separate set
    of processing rules, etc.) or can it just be a W3C Primer-like Note?

I think we should listen to the community... people seemed to like the 
concept of RDFa 1.1 Lite based on the re-tweets on Twitter today. 
Perhaps if Google picks it up, they can just provide all of their 
examples using only RDFa 1.1 Lite and we could elaborate on RDFa 1.1 
Lite a bit more in an informal W3C Note. I think that's really all that 
the community would need in the near term.

I don't think that creating a formal definition for a different set of 
processing rules for RDFa 1.1 is asking for trouble. We already know 
that not processing things like @resource lead to a different, erroneous 
set of triples in RDFa 1.1. This would mean that authors would have to 
decide to either develop for RDFa 1.1 Lite or RDFa 1.1 (exclusively), 
and that is a recipe for disaster.

> To
> formally define some sort of a conformance criteria for processors?

I think having separate conformance criteria for RDFa would be a huge 
mistake.

> With all my love to your blog page:-), it would be good to have that
> documented somewhere, probably on the W3C site...

I'm personally offended that you don't view my personal blog as a good, 
normative source for Web standards! :P

I'd be happy to spec-ify the text that is there on RDFa 1.1 Lite as a 
W3C Note, and publish via W3C.

> Also: does RDFa 1.1 Lite include the initial context? Ie, the default
> prefixes and terms?

Yes. There is a sentence in the blog post outlining this bit:

"One of the other nice things about RDFa 1.1 (and RDFa 1.1 Lite) is that 
a number of useful and popular prefixes are pre-defined, so you can skip 
declaring them altogether and just use the prefixes.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed
http://manu.sporny.org/2011/payment-links/
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 01:47:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:56 GMT