Representation formats for ITS 2.0

Table of Contents

XML
HTML5
Microdata
RDFa
Another issues

XML

  • follows ITS 1.0 syntax

  • ITS 2.0 will use the same namespace as ITS 1.0

  • its:version="2.0" attribute will be used to distinguish between ITS 1.0 and 2.0

Example 1. XML representation

<p its:locNote="MSGCNT is a number of messages">There are {MSGCNT} messages in your mailbox.</p>

HTML5

  • for XHTML serialization XML representation provided above can be used

  • prefixed attributes its-* will be used to prevent naming collisions

  • “its:camelCaseExample” will be converted to “its-camel-case-example”

  • ITS 2.0 must be “applicable specification” in terms of HTML5 to define its-* attributes

  • global rules will be referenced using <link> element

Example 2. HTML representation

<p its-loc-note="MSGCNT is a number of messages">There are {MSGCNT} messages in your mailbox.</p>

Example 3. Linking to global rules in HTML

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>Test</title>
    <link href="rules.xml" rel="its-rules">
  </head>
  <body>
    ...
  </body>
</html>

TODO: We have to register rel="its-rules" at http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions once we have first draft of ITS 2.0 spec


Microdata

  • each element to which ITS data categories should apply will became item

  • data categories became properties

  • possible trouble – meta element is not allowed everywhere in HTML5

Example 4. Microdata representation

<p itemscope itemtype="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its">
   <meta itemprop="locNote" content="MSGCNT is a number of messages">
   There are {MSGCNT} messages in your mailbox.
</p>

RDFa

  • we have to provide mapping to RDFa

  • how such mapping should look like is still open

    • subject in RDF triplet can be URI or blank node, not HTML element

    • using RDFa only as a syntax and ignoring mapping to RDF graph is non-conforming, technically incorrect and can be questioned during LC

    • should we adopt NIF or something else?

    • TODO: Write mapping proposal

Example 5. RDFa representation


Another issues

  • ISSUE-19: HTML legacy content: how to represent the metadata?

    • Resolution: Jirka has been given action to write this down.

  • usage of XPointer ranges

    • Resolution: We will stick with XPath, drop XPointer

  • Provenance Data Model?

    • Resolution: Will be covered in a separate session

  • Schema publication using SKOS BP

    • Resolution: Postpone until we have formal ontology and use-case