Re: Updated Microdata to RDF spec

Hi All,

Just catching up after making the move back to the US.

I haven't given a full review of Gregg's document yet. So far I've read the
email discussion, and I want to note that from my standpoint as an
implementer I am in full agreement with all of Jeni's
points<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-data-tf/2011Nov/0173.html>.
I will review the mapping itself more thoroughly and try it with my current
use case to see if I have any comments that haven't been addressed yet.

-Lin

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>wrote:

> Hi Lin,
>
> You might have seen from discussions on the HTML Data TF list that Gregg's
> brought the Microdata-to-RDF mapping document to a reasonably complete
> state.
>
> Please could you or appropriate DERI colleagues take a look at it and see
> whether it's fit for your purposes. If not, what needs changing?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeni
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > Resent-From: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
> > From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
> > Subject: Updated Microdata to RDF spec
> > Date: 19 November 2011 02:16:41 GMT
> > To: HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
> >
> > I've completed a number of updates to the Microdata to RDF spec [1]. The
> live editor's draft is at [2]. I believe this addresses all of the issues
> that we've discussed. It's a pretty substantial update.
> >
> > This version introduces the registry, in an ad-hoc JSON form, which
> allows vocabularies and particular properties to take on special processing
> attributes. This includes property URI generation and if values are placed
> in an rdf:List or not.
> >
> > Note that the registry is defined to live at http://www.w3.org/ns/md,
> and uses http://www.w3.org/ns/md# as a prefix. The document is not
> actually loaded here at this point. I'm also exploring an RDF
> representation of the registry, which you can see here [3][4]. Note that in
> this case I'm using rdfs:range semantics to determine serialization, and
> I've suggested some schema.org properties that may want to use an
> rdf:List range.
> >
> > This version retains the <time> element, although the content model has
> not been updated to include the latest WHATWG version (duration, gYear,
> etc. equivalents).
> >
> > My Ruby (public domain) implementation is updated, and uses an internal
> version of the registry. It's available for download on GitHub [5] and a
> live running version is on my distiller [6].
> >
> > Comments appreciated.
> >
> > Gregg Kellogg
> >
> > [1]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/ED/microdata-rdf/20111118/index.html
> > [2]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/microdata-rdf/index.html
> > [3]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/microdata-namespace/ns.ttl
> > [4]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/default/microdata-namespace/ns.jsonld
> > [5] http://github.com/gkellogg/rdf-microdata
> > [6] http://rdf.greggkellogg.net/distiller?in_fmt=microdata
> >
>
> --
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>
>
>


-- 
Lin Clark
DERI, NUI Galway <http://www.deri.ie/>

lin-clark.com
twitter.com/linclark