Re: RDFa Core, fragids, 3023bis, and FYN

Jonathan,

On 17 Oct 2011, at 19:50, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>  Is RDF-style fragid semantics for RDFa Core to be documented
> 
>  (a) only in the RDFa Core spec,
>  (b) only in media type (or namespace?) registrations referencing RDFa
>      Core,
>  (c) neither, or
>  (d) both?

My opinion is that (b) is the right approach, alongside an informative reference from RDFa Core as you suggest.

> For (b) and (d), RDFa Core could give this advice:
> 
>  "Those preparing registrations for media types that support RDFa
>  Core are advised not only to reference RDFa Core but also to
>  document this style of fragment identifier semantics, following the
>  example of RFC 3870 section 3."  [for "this semantics" see their
>  current note, prior to 2.1]

It could say "...document this style of fragment identifier semantics *if it is one the media type supports*..." to make it clear that RDF semantics for fragids is only an option not a necessity. There is nothing as far as I can see that compels media types that use RDFa to interpret fragment identifiers in an RDF way.

For example, say I registered the media type for XML used to mark up legislation as application/legislation+xml. Say the registration stated that only bare name fragment identifiers should be used with the media type, and that these referred to (possibly missing) elements within the XML identified by xml:id. How does the fact that I use RDFa in that markup language change the meaning of the fragment identifiers?

> This might help going forward, but does not really do the trick for
> current users.  It would be helpful to say something about particular
> existing registrations, and revisions to those in progress. Might we
> want to alert people to these, as a "health warning"?
> 
>  "As of the time of publication, the media type registrations for
>  text/html and application/xml are under revision.  We expect RDFa
>  Core to be referenced (perhaps indirectly) by the text/html
>  registration, but are not sure what the registration will say about
>  fragment identifier semantics.  The current application/xml
>  registration (RFC 3023) is compatible with use of RDFa Core [?] and this
>  fragment identifier semantics, but the relation between the three
>  going forward is under discussion."

I think it's worth mentioning RFC 3023 within RDFa Core. Perhaps say something like 

  "RFC 3023 is currently being revised and developers of vocabularies that use RDFa should be aware that it may limit the semantics of fragment identifiers used in application/xml and */*+xml documents."

RDFa Core could also say something like:

  "The examples in this specification assume that documents are served using a media type whose registration states that fragment identifiers may be interpreted based on RDF semantics."

Mention of text/html is appropriate within the HTML+RDFa 1.1 WD, and mention of application/xhtml+xml in XHTML+RDFa 1.1 WD. The media type registrations for these will need to contain appropriate wording, which means bugs against the HTML5 spec since that's where those are defined.

Cheers,

Jeni
-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 21:32:39 UTC