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

Re: RDFa 1.1 Lite

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 08:56:59 +0200
Cc: W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <30C3AAD8-A081-4B66-825F-066513B54A94@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Hey Manu (and others)

On Oct 22, 2011, at 03:47 , Manu Sporny wrote:
[skip]

> 
>> To
>> formally define some sort of a conformance criteria for processors?
> 
> I think having separate conformance criteria for RDFa would be a huge mistake.

Formally, probably no, you are right. But I could very well see an extra option in my RDFa distiller, for example, which says 'understand RDFa 1.1 Lite only'. The same for my validator. That is not conformance, but useful nevertheless...

> 
>> 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

Sorry:-)

> 
> 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.
> 

O.k. That is probably something that could be done quickly. Alternatively, if this is something that binds to schema.org, the three (or four now with Baidu?) W3C members who are part of schema.org can submit that as a member submission. Both are possible and I do not have a strong preference...

>> 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.

Ah, o.k.

Two more technical remarks:

- I presume the answer is yes, but it was not mentioned in your blog: is @src part of RDFa 1.1 Lite?

- The removal of @resource may create problems in practice _unless_ HTML5 allows <link> (and, for completeness, <meta>) elements in the body. The use cases of putting some elements somewhere else on the page and referring to it from several other places (the equivalent of @itemref in md) depend on the fact that I can make, in RDF terms, a reference to a subject elsewhere on the page. With the removal of @resource the only way to do that is via @href, and without <link> that means that all such links will be clickable. We may not want that, and that is where <link> would come into play.

I know there is a bug entry to the HTML5 WG, but I am afraid of this leading to yet another long discussion with that WG. Allowing @resource (even though it is rarely used) would alleviate that...

Thanks again Manu

Ivan


> 
> -- 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/
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 06:55:20 GMT

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