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

Re: RDFa 1.1 Lite

From: Guha <guha@google.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 07:50:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPAGhv-7YnydBmimCV9DbdhUUZFRAzq=SOnaxC1Z_fgpXiyAxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Vocabularies <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Too many different issues here, I will kick off separate threads to discuss
each.

guha

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 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 14:50:52 GMT

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