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 22:35:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4EA22BF0.7070101@digitalbazaar.com>
To: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 10/21/2011 02:27 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet 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? To
> formally define some sort of a conformance criteria for processors?
> +1. I think this would help people to build processors faster and
> just label it as RDFa Lite, without having to implement the full RDFa
> spec.

-1 - we don't want two conformance levels... that will shoot the Web in
the foot (or tendril? Whatever the Web uses to move around... we'll
accidentally shoot that off).

As far as I understand, we've never had a problem with people
implementing processors once they've decided to do so. The librdfa,
SAX-based RDFa processor, written in pure C, took me 40 hours to write.
The test RDFa processor that I wrote after that took 15 hours to write.
I think there is a perceived complexity here that doesn't exist for
implementers... I don't think that's the problem here.

Additionally, if an implementer must to shed blood to make the authoring
experience better, so be it. We've always been far more concerned about
authors (as we should be).

> Also: does RDFa 1.1 Lite include the initial context? Ie, the default
> prefixes and terms?
> I don't see why this could not be included.

It is included. :)

> It would have simplified the latest example of your blog post for
> example, in other words, in many cases, @prefix does not have to be
> used (unless you are using custom vocabularies).

Yes, I tried to think of a real vocabulary that I could've used that
doesn't exist in the initial context and couldn't come up with a good
one... it turns out that we include all of the ones that I thought about 
using as an example in the initial context. :P

We'll need to re-vamp that example.

> I understand though that you needed a use case for demoing @prefix,
> but I'm not even sure @prefix needs to be part of RDFa 1.1 Lite? (or
> at least not advertised as much, provided it includes the core
> default profile).

We could've left @prefix out of RDFa 1.1 Core. We could've replaced
@vocab with a modification on @prefix. We could've also left out @rel
and @typeof. Maybe we should've included @content? The question is -
where do you draw the line? It all depends on which use cases you want
to support... it's a sliding scale. More RDFa attributes == more use
cases supported.

I've gotten a number of pieces of feedback on the proposal thus far and
some say it goes to far, others say it doesn't go far enough. So, we'll
have to listen to the community and see where we find consensus over the
next several weeks/months.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Standardizing Payment Links - Why Online Tipping has Failed
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 02:36:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:21 UTC