Re: Proposed update for Microdata to RDF specification

>
> "it amounts to an extension of microdata"


Is there any update on how this is coming along? The proposal is done after
all.

2014-12-01 12:46 GMT+01:00 <chaals@yandex-team.ru>:

> 01.12.2014, 14:38, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>:
> ...
> > https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues
> ...
> > However, issue #5, on @itemprop-reverse, is really open. Personally, I
> do not believe that feature should be included in the conversion spec; it
> amounts to an extension of microdata, which goes beyond what this document
> is for...
>
> Yes, much as I like the idea, I think we should put the feature into
> microdata rather than wedge it in through this spec.
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> > Ivan
> >>  On 01 Dec 2014, at 05:55 , Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Last call for comments on this draft. Unless issues are raised by
> Friday, we'll prep it for publication.
> >>
> >>  Gregg Kellogg
> >>  gregg@greggkellogg.net
> >>>  On Nov 19, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Based on feedback and emerging requirements, I’ve prepared another
> draft for an update to the Microdata to RDF Note [1]. As this is a Note of
> the Semantic Web Interest Group, please send feedback to
> semantic-web@w3.org. This update represents a substantial simplification
> to the algorithm by eliminating unused mechanisms and simplifies generation
> of implied triples (e.g. schema:additionalType).
> >>>
> >>>  This Working Draft is an update of the W3C Interest Group Note,
> published in October 2012. This update simplifies processing using the
> following mechanisms:
> >>>
> >>>  • Experimental support for @itemprop-reverse has been added. This
> attribute is not part of [MICRODATA] and is included as an experimental
> feature. Specific feedback from the community is requested. Based on
> addoption, the attribute may be considered for inclusion in forthcoming
> versions of [MICRODATA] and this note. (see issue 5 [2])
> >>>
> >>>  • Top-level items were previously included in a md:item RDF
> Collection to reconstruct the order that items appear in the DOM. This has
> also proven to not be useful and has been dropped. (see issue 6 [3])
> >>>
> >>>  • A property value may be extracted from the @content attribute of
> the meta element. (see issue 7 [4])
> >>>
> >>>  • A property value may be extracted from the @value attribute of the
> data or meter elements. If this value has numeric form, it will produce a
> datatyped literal using the appropriate datatype from [XMLSCHEMA11-2] (see
> issue 8 [5] and issue 9 [6])
> >>>
> >>>  • Property URI generation was under control of the propertyURI
> registry setting. This setting could previously have taken either the
> _vocabulary_ or _contextual_ settings. As _contextual_ was never used in a
> registry, and usage in the wild favors the vocabulary setting, support for
> _contextua_l has been eliminated, and consequently support for the
> propertyURI element within the registry. This issue remains open pending
> community review; specifically, anyone depending on this feature should
> provide feedback as requested below. (see issue 10 [7])
> >>>
> >>>  • An item having multiple values for a given property could
> previously having been placed in an RDF Collection if the multipleValues
> registry setting were set to _list_. Although the previous registry did
> have such a setting for some schema.org values, this is not honored by
> most search engines, and so has been dropped, and consequently support for
> the multipeValues element within the registry. This issue remains open
> pending community review; specifically, anyone depending on this feature
> should provide feedback as requested below. (see issue 10 [7])
> >>>
> >>>  • Lastly, the previous update introduced Vocabulary Expansion using
> entailment rules adopted from [RDFA-CORE] under control of the
> vocab_expansion option. Support for Vocabulary Expansion has been
> substantially simplified, and is no longer under control of an option. This
> issue remains open pending community review; specifically, anyone depending
> on this feature should provide feedback as requested below. (see issue 10
> [7])
> >>>
> >>>  The intention is to publish this draft as a new version of the
> Interest Group Note after gathering and incorporating community input.
> Please provide feedback by 5 December 2014. Please see GitHub issues for a
> discussion of tradeoffs considered in this version.
> >>>
> >>>  An updated test suite is referenced from the spec. A diff to the
> previous revision is available using the ReSpec key-sequence
> SHIFT-CTRL-ALT-S when viewing the spec.
> >>>
> >>>  Gregg Kellogg
> >>>  gregg@greggkellogg.net
> >>>
> >>>  [1] http://w3c.github.io/microdata-rdf
> >>>  [2] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/5
> >>>  [3] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/6
> >>>  [4] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/7
> >>>  [5]https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/8
> >>>  [6] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/9
> >>>  [7] https://github.com/w3c/microdata-rdf/issues/10
> >
> > ----
> > Ivan Herman, W3C
> > Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> > mobile: +31-641044153
> > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
>