W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005)

From: Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 <jeremy@miko.hk>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:20:03 +0800
Message-ID: <002e01c5f3c2$40338390$6802a8c0@miko.hk.local>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>


Thanks for your reply. See my prompt response below.
Miko-Kings Instruments Ltd.
Web: http://www.miko.com.hk/
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ben Adida" <ben@mit.edu>
To: "Jeremy Wong 黃泓量" <jeremy@miko.hk>
Cc: <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on RDF/A Syntax (Editor's Draft 27 October 2005)

> Jeremy,
> Thanks for your comments. A quick response below.
>> 1. "rdf:about" instead of "about"
>> "rdf:about" is pretty well-known. To learn a new attribute,  "rdf:about" 
>> and "about" are no difference. Just a name to remember...
>> e.g., <p rdf:about=""><a rel="dc:creator" 
>> href="mailto:bill.gates@microsoft.com">Bill Gates</a> blah blah</p>
>> => { <> dc:creator <mailto:bill.gates@microsoft> . }
> Having rdf:about but xhtml2:rel, xhtml2:property, and xhtml2:href  seems 
> inconsistent. Having them all scoped as rdf: is not possible  without 
> adding to that namespace, which seems like overkill.
> Note also that rdf:about is completely unknown to the HTML community,  so 
> I suspect this would cause more confusion than consistency.

Confusion is made to those whom they do not know XML Namespaces. Instead of 
confusion, I would say that the use of the "rdf:" prefix discourages people 
from using the RDF/A syntax. Simply one reason of discouragement, it looks 
complicated. Don't ask me to learn any more...

The semantics of "about" should be exactly "rdf:about". xhtml:* attributes 
are another things. I am not sure if it is inconsistent.

>> 2. use the "type" attribute for typed literal
>> The "type" attribute is from the anchor element.
>> e.g., <p rdf:about=""><a rel="dc:date" 
>> type="xsd:dateTime">2005-11-25T00:46:00+0800</a> blah blah</p>
>> => { <> dc:date "2005-11-25T00:46:00+0800"^^xsd:dateTime . }
> So you're suggesting "type" instead of "datatype". I'm not expert  enough 
> on this issue to say which is better. Any particular reason  for your 
> suggestion?

I really made my message without proof-reading. I made a serious mistake 
here. The "type" attribute of the anchor element is for media type, such as 
MIME type. Datatype is totally a different thing. It takes QName instead.

>> 3. use of Production "propertyAttr" [1]
>> I recommend to use "propertyAttr" for the case of "nodeElement" [2] 
>> only, never "emptyPropertyElt" [3]
>> e.g. <p rdf:about="" dc:subject="SemanticWeb">blah blah blah</p>
>> => { <> dc:subject "SemanticWeb" . }
> This is an issue which we've currently put off. In the current draft,  a 
> property is never declared as an attribute except in special HTML- 
> specific cases (like class and role). We may take this up again,  though 
> right now we're leaning towards simpler, fewer methods of  saying the same 
> thing.

I agree with your direction of simpler and fewer methods.

> -Ben

Jeremy Wong 
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 02:20:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:46 UTC