- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:31:16 +0100
- To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
- Cc: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On Nov 23, 2011, at 15:16 , Jeni Tennison wrote: [snip] >> >> Hm. I am not 100% sure I understand what this means... I would rather say something along the lines that the consumer should be prepared to the fact that the published material may include references to other vocabularies (typing, predicates, etc) that the consumer does not necessarily know about. In such a case, the consumer should ignore those references but should by no means influence consuming vocabulary items that it understands. This is, for example, a very important aspect of schema.org that was not made clear at the initial announcement: consumer may safely mix schema.org and, say, good relations terms for the same resource; schema.org will just pick its own terms out of the structure and live happily with that. > > OK, the document does say that within > > http://www.w3.org/wiki/Choosing_an_HTML_Data_Format#Good_Consumption_Practice > > Perhaps that needs to be more prominent. Where would you recommend moving it to? > Maybe not moving, but repeating some of this under the producer side 'vocabulary consideration'. Producers should know about this, they should know how consumers react to such a situation. And consumers should publish their behaviour on this respect... [snip] > >>> I think that's a good thing to mention in the vocabulary design page. I'll have a go at some wording... >>> >>>> - If you rely on javascripting together with the structured data, there are again differences: microformats, as far as I know (may be wrong!) does not have a dedicated API; microdata has that as part of its definition; RDFa has some drafts around but they are not on the same level of maturity as their counterpart in microdata. A somewhat similar issue is the access to the data in json. >>> >>> Yes. The section on Tooling Considerations at >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Choosing_an_HTML_Data_Format#Tooling_Considerations >>> >>> is meant to cover that, but of course it's hard to give general advice there both because we can't list all available tools and because the tooling landscape changes so rapidly. >> >> Sure. And listing explicit tools and libraries would not really be a good idea. >> >> But I think making it clear that, at present at least, only microdata has an API as part of its specification is worth mentioning; that is important if developers want to use, say, Javascript (although, at this moment, I am not sure any of the browsers implement this API). We could/should also mention that similar work is considered for the RDFa landscape, but its maturity (as of now) is not on the same level as microdata. > > > OK, I added some pointers at > > http://www.w3.org/wiki/Choosing_an_HTML_Data_Format#Tooling_Considerations > > Could you take a look and see if that's enough? There is also a microdata in json, more exactly a mapping definition from md to JSON: http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#json worth adding. As for RDFa, there is an API doc WD: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-rdfa-api-20110419/ although it is not clear what the fate of this will be in future. Ivan > > Thanks, > > 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 Wednesday, 23 November 2011 14:28:17 UTC