Re: [Action-32] Štajner to clarify the (non) need to aprse RDF, but the need to parse RDFa and microdata parsing

Hi, David,
  there was some overlap between the ISSUE-2 discussion and this action 
item - I believe that the conclusion we arrived at satisifies both 
points. To put explicitly:

The requirements are:
- some downstream consumers of the marked-up data need a chance at 
simply integrating it with other RDF datasets. There should be a clear 
transformation path from the "ITSx" mark-up to RDF.
- on the other hand, we don't want to require every producer and 
consumer implementing our standard that they are able to reason in RDF;
- we want to keep the standard markup concise - we want to avoid 
requiring people to explicitly produce markup that makes no immediate 
sense (defining resources and URIs for every annotated content fragment 
can be too verbose, and against the 'mark-up text' philosophy).
- not breaking browser's HTML rendering

Our strategy is:
- defining a transformation from "ITSx" to RDF assertions (for RDFa, 
RDFa Lite, Microdata)
- defining a recipe (algorithm) for representing content fragments 
within the document in order to have things representable in pure RDF
- specifying the value spaces of certain attributes to be RDF resources, 
where it makes sense to do so, for instance, genre, topic, entity, 
entityType (NERD, schema.org)
- an implementation MAY implement the transformations from HTML5+ITS to 
HTML+RDFa/RDFa Lite/Microdata

-- Tadej


On 3/29/2012 1:25 PM, Dr. David Filip wrote:
> Tadej, can you please elaborate on this?
>
> If you did as part of the Issue-2 discussion please explain explicitly 
> in reply to this e-mail.
> Thanks
> dF
>
> Dr. David Filip
> =======================
> LRC | CNGL | LT-Web | CSIS
> University of Limerick, Ireland
> telephone: +353-6120-2781
> *cellphone: +353-86-0222-158*
> facsimile: +353-6120-2734
> mailto: david.filip@ul.ie <mailto:david.filip@ul.ie>
>