W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > October 2011

Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:14:34 -0400
To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
CC: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Gavin Carothers <gavin@topquadrant.com>, "public-html-data-tf@w3.org" <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AEB1DBE3-1F62-45E0-A01E-CC11D9362B27@greggkellogg.net>
I'm just adding it to the spec, as I don't believe it's controversial.


On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:21 PM, Martin Hepp wrote:

> So someone should file an issue on this. It should be possible to specify the language of an invisible element.
> If not for the Microdata spec, then at least for the Microdata-to-RDF extraction, where language tags are a first-class citizen.
> Martin
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:34 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> Language tagged literals are supported, but for some reason not on meta. See "property values" in my spec.
>> Gregg Kellogg
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:24 PM, "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Gavin,
>>> thanks for raising this. But as far as I can see, this issue is "still pending review" and anyway just considered for RDF 1.1, so current SPARQL implementations will still break on this.
>>> Anyway, in this respect I think it is important to find a way to indicate the language of the value for a "content" attribute in 
>>> <meta content="xyz">
>>> patterns in Microdata; I just found out that the language of the context will not be used by Microdata-to-RDF parsers.
>>> Martin
>>> On Oct 18, 2011, at 11:09 PM, Gavin Carothers wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Martin Hepp
>>>> <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org> wrote:
>>>>> Ah! Thanks! That is a bug in my RDFa example. In all GoodRelations examples, we use datatyping, except for xsd:string, because while this is theoretically needed, too, the distinction between plain literals and typed RDF literals with xsd:string as their type is hard to explain to practitioners.
>>>> The RDF WG has resolved to remove that distinction. "example" ==
>>>> "example"^^xsd:string the current working draft of RDF Concepts talks
>>>> more about this,
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Gavin
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 07:15:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:08:25 UTC