- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:53:42 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
On Nov 17, 2011, at 12:32 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I essentially agree. In fact, I realized a while ago, when I played with the new @property setting in RDFa 1.1, that @resource might really be missing[1]. I must admit I did not think of dropping @about although, thinking about it further, having them both might be a bit complicated for the constituency of RDFa Lite. Another reason to at least include @resourse is that, in HTML5, the content model for @href/@src and other native resource types, is a URL, not an IRI; in the DOM API, IRIs are actually transformed into URLs. If you want to have IRI resources, you'd need @resource. In any case, I think that @resource creates less confusion than @about. Gregg > I have cc-d Ben explicitly, to see if there were some technical issues discussed on this that we may not know about. > > Ivan > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0024.html > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 23:49 , Jeni Tennison wrote: > >> >> On 16 Nov 2011, at 21:19, Niklas Lindström wrote: >>> Have we considered whether @resource would be preferable over @about >>> in RDFa Lite? >> >> It's funny because I was just running into some issues that made me wish for @resource rather than @about. >> >> @danbri set me the challenge of creating a stylesheet to map microdata into RDFa 1.1 Lite in part to easily generate some RDFa 1.1 Lite examples using schema.org markup. >> >> The first document that I tried was http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0813715/. This contains the markup (much simplified here): >> >> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/TVSeries"> >> <div itemprop="aggregateRating" >> itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/AggregateRating"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span itemprop="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span itemprop="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span itemprop="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> which if you were to convert to RDF using the microdata/RDF mapping that Gregg's been working on, would generate something like: >> >> <> md:item [ >> a schema:TVSeries; >> schema:aggregateRating [ >> a schema:AggregateRating; >> schema:bestRating "10"; >> schema:ratingCount "23,201"; >> schema:ratingValue "7.2" >> ] >> ] . >> >> A simplistic mapping into RDFa 1.1 gives: >> >> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="TVSeries"> >> <div property="aggregateRating" >> vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="AggregateRating"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span property="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span property="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span property="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> If you run that through a RDFa parser, you get: >> >> [ >> a schema:TVSeries; >> schema:aggregateRating [ >> a schema:AggregateRating; >> schema:bestRating "10"; >> schema:ratingValue "7.2" >> ] >> ] . >> >> <ratings> schema:ratingCount "23,201" . >> >> What's happened? The ratingCount property is nested within a link, and the @href of the link is creating a new scope for the statements within that link, so instead of belonging to the AggregateRating, the ratingCount is a property of <ratings> (the URI of the link). >> >> I can get around that in this case by adding a property="" to the link. However, if it had a @rel on it already, like this: >> >> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="TVSeries"> >> <div property="aggregateRating" >> vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="AggregateRating"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span property="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span property="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" rel="prefetch" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span property="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> then that wouldn't work. In that case, I need to make sure that the subject of the ratingCount property is the aggregate rating, rather than <ratings>. >> >> I could do that in two ways. One would be to add an @about attribute on both elements pointing to the same blank node, but in that case I'd need to create another nested <div> because if I put an @about attribute on the element with property="aggregateRating" then the subject of the triple generated by that property would be the @about. But then the property="aggregateRating" doesn't chain, so I'd have to use @rel: >> >> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="TVSeries"> >> <div rel="aggregateRating"> >> <div about="_:rating" vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="AggregateRating"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span property="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span property="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" rel="prefetch" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span about="_:rating" property="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> Or as Nicklas suggested I could use the @resource attribute. That works out a lot neater: >> >> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="TVSeries"> >> <div property="aggregateRating" resource="_:rating" >> vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="AggregateRating"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span property="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span property="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" rel="prefetch" resource="_:rating" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span property="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> Note that in neither case does the xhv:prefetch relationship make any sense whatsoever. Hopefully processors will ignore the bogus xhv:* properties. >> >> @resource also gives a lot better mapping for @itemid. Say the microdata had an @itemid on the inner <div> like this: >> >> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/TVSeries"> >> <div itemprop="aggregateRating" >> itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/AggregateRating" >> itemid="ratings"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span itemprop="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span itemprop="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span itemprop="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> If @resource were allowed in RDFa 1.1 Lite then I could just map the @itemid to @resource really easily: >> >> <div vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="TVSeries"> >> <div property="aggregateRating" >> vocab="http://schema.org/" typeof="AggregateRating" >> resource="ratings"> >> Ratings: >> <strong><span property="ratingValue">7.2</span></strong> >> <span class="mellow">/<span property="bestRating">10</span></span> from >> <a href="ratings" >> title="23,201 IMDb users have given an average vote of 7.2/10"> >> <span property="ratingCount">23,201</span> users</a> >> </div> >> </div> >> >> So I strongly support Niklas' suggestion of using @resource rather than @about in RDFa 1.1 Lite. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeni >> -- >> Jeni Tennison >> http://www.jenitennison.com >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 November 2011 13:54:22 UTC