W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: RDFa Lite vs RDFa full support (was: schema.org Roles design)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 13:07:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=7=Nkf6R1u+YGqna52kzHEU7oKfVpTd9wa7MOTegcEA2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net>
Cc: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>, Jarno van Driel <jarno@quantumspork.nl>, Guha <guha@google.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, SchemaDot Org <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Jason Douglas <jasondouglas@google.com>
On 3 April 2014 12:10, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2014 2:00 AM, "Stéphane Corlosquet" <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:
>>> 1. My understanding was that the schema.org partners had said they
>>> would parse RDFa Lite, giving the impression that RDFa full was _not_
>>> going to be accepted. But this thread is using RDFa full attributes
>>> such as @about, @rel, and @rev. We may want to keep these constraints
>>> in mind given schema.org's original raison d'être.
>> Note there is no such thing as "RDFa Lite parser" (there is no parser spec
>> for RDFa Lite), all parsers should support RDFa full. RDFa Lite is a subset
>> designed for authors to use the most popular parts of RDFa which are
>> sufficient in 95% of the use cases. Then there are the other 5% which are
>> needed for more advance use cases such as the ones highlighted by Dan
>> Brickley.
> Fair enough, but when I read "We hope that our support for 'RDFa Lite',
> alongside Microdata, will allow publishers to focus more on what they want
> to say with their data"
> (http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html), I
> interpret that as saying that _only_ RDFa Lite is supported by the
> schema.org search engine partners... no matter what the RDFa Lite specs say
> about the "shoulds" of compliant implementations.

Schema.org is supportive of the RDFa Lite initiative, which allows
RDFa to be as simple as Microdata for most use cases. It's good for
the Web, good for schema.org, and was a difficult piece of work for
the RDFa group as they wanted to preserve backwards compatibility too.
Whether specific products and services have fully compliant RDFa 1.1
parsers yet is a separate (although clearly related) concern.
Similarly with JSON-LD, schema.org as a whole is supportive of the
initiative and various of the schema.org partners are using JSON-LD
with schema.org markup.

The next version of the schema.org site will show markup examples in
each of these formats, and we should tweak the supporting documents to
indicate greater pluralism. Still afaik Microdata remains the most
broadly understood format for now, although things are moving in a
more pluralistic direction.


Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 12:08:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC