Re: Updated Microdata to RDF draft

On Oct 29, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> 
> On 29 Oct 2011, at 16:25, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 2011, at 2:02 AM, "Jeni Tennison" <jeni@jenitennison.com> wrote:
>>> A quick thing for your next revision to the microdata RDF spec: Hixie has resolved the issue on replacing <time> with <data> [1] and made the relevant changes in the spec [2]. The new <data> element has a value attribute which is used to provide the relevant microdata property value [3].
>> 
>> Looking at the diffs, it is clear that @value is intended for typed data, and that lexical scanning might be in order. I believe Hixie would reject this and say that the vocabulary must define the types and be explicitly supported by a processor, but for generic transformation this is not feasible.
>> 
>> If we do lexical scanning, what set of datatypes is appropriate? Thoughts?
> 
> Personally, I don't think we should do any lexical scanning. Whether an appropriate data type is assigned based on property information from a registry is another question.

Probably best to leave this to MAY behavior and/or to provide some support in the Registry. I doubt that RDFa would perform lexical scanning, and certainly won't have vocabulary-specific behavior, so this will lead to better compatibility.

More worrying is the URI normalization Martin pointed out on SWIG. More on that in a separate email.

> It might be that even with a default mapping, literals generated from @value attributes shouldn't be language tagged, as they're designed to hold machine-readable rather than human-readable values.

I think you're right, much as with <meta>, the value shouldn't be language tagged.

Gregg

> Jeni
> 
>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13240#c47
>>> [2] http://html5.org/r/6783
>>> [3] http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/Overview.html#values
> 
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
>

Received on Saturday, 29 October 2011 19:14:59 UTC