- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:12:11 +0200
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46B88BCB.8070509@w3.org>
Hm. Well. Hm. And again well... :-)
I am not sure either. I see your argument, but I do not have any
experience on which way is better and more agreeable for the user. I
could also imagine a situation when I cut and paste a portion of code
which acts as some sort of a template for setting some predicates
against _whatever_ the inherited subject is, in which case a sudden
redefinition is a pain...
Again I am not sure. I guess that in case of uncertainty and empirical
evidence on what the user really wants, I would opt for an approach that
is algorithmically cleaner and does not have too many implicit resets,
exception to rules, etc. In this sense I have a (maybe unsubstantiated)
feeling that not assigning any extra behaviour to @xml:base makes sense.
I know this is not a strong argument...
Let see what the others think!
Ivan
Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hi Ivan!
>
> I agree with all but the last part of this - regarding xml:base and
> inherited subjects. This is indeed interesting.
>
> I can see your argument, that it may seem strange for @xml:base to
> effectively reset what the current (possibly chained) subject is. But
> I am not really convinced. Let's say that @xml:base *should* do that.
> Not to equate @xml:base with @about, but because the primary usage of
> the xml:base mechanism (apart from when used in the root element)
> would be to embed fragments from other documents (though I lack
> empirical evidence of this).
>
> That would benefit from (perhaps even require) xml:base working as an
> opaque URI boundary. Since it does effect relative URI resolution in
> e.g. @href outside of RDFa, should it not also permeate the RDFa side
> of things? That is, directly effecting the current subject in the same
> manner as the document URI (or any @xml:base of the root).
>
> If what you describe is correct, wouldn't it be confusing that the
> current subject before an @xml:base "drags along" until "caught" by
> another @about?
>
> I'm not entirely certain though, I think this requires a good deal of thought.
>
> (On another note; thank you for the pyRdfa implementation! It came
> very timely for me.)
>
> Best regards,
> Niklas
>
>
> On 8/7/07, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> Well,
>>
>> I did not really care about validation, to be honest. The XHTML part
>> should be changed anyway, because the meta is still in the <body> part.
>> For the sake of this mail, let me reproduce the core of the thing:
>>
>> [[[
>> <body>
>> <span xml:base="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/">
>> <link about="" rel="dc:creator"
>> href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" />
>> <meta property="dc:title" content="Internet Applications" />
>> </span>
>> </body>
>> ]]]
>>
>> The sparql part says:
>>
>> [[[
>> ASK WHERE {
>> ?x0 <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/title> "Internet Applications" .
>> <http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/>
>> <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator>
>> <http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .
>> }
>> ]]]
>>
>> which seems to suggest that the value of ?x0 is still pending. pyRdfa
>> returns:
>>
>> [[[
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
>> <rdf:RDF
>> xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
>> xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="0004.xhtml">
>> <dc:title>Internet Applications</dc:title>
>> </rdf:Description>
>> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/">
>> <dc:creator rdf:resource="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404"/>
>> </rdf:Description>
>> </rdf:RDF>
>> ]]]
>>
>> which I claim _is_ correct (with the caveat that it refers to the file
>> name for "" and not to the test URI). Ie, the value of ?x0 should be, in
>> my view:
>>
>> <http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004.xhtml>
>>
>> The test _is_ a bit tricky indeed: the <meta> inherits from its parent
>> the @about value as a subject, but I do not believe that setting the
>> xml:base should change the value of that inherited subject implicitly.
>> That is why I believe that the result of pyRdfa is correct...
>>
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>>> Ivan,
>>>
>>> Not so sure about @xml:base.
>>>
>>> What I know is that we have TC 4 [1] on hold
>>> because it does not validate due to @xml:base ?!
>>>
>>> Shane, any thoughts/explanations?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/testsuite/xhtml1-testcases/Test0004
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>> Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>>> JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>> Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
>>>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 3:59 PM
>>>> To: Hausenblas, Michael
>>>> Cc: W3C RDFa task force
>>>> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)
>>>>
>>>> One thing, though.
>>>>
>>>> I ran all my tests from my local machine. Ie, the RDF results
>>>> were _not_ what the sparql requires because the base is the
>>>> local file name and not the test file URI. It is of course
>>>> easy to compare things visually.
>>>> Well, that is what you would think: one of my bugs was to
>>>> handle the relative URI-s properly and I realized the problem
>>>> only in the second or third test:-)
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether we should not add an xml:base in most of the
>>>> tests (except those that explicitly test xml:base:-).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org
>>>>>> [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan
>>>>>> Herman
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 2:49 PM
>>>>>> To: W3C RDFa task force
>>>>>> Subject: Re: My no-longer pseudo code, the way I understand it:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have run the tests that are marked as 'approved' either
>>>> explicitly
>>>>>> under the heading
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Review and Approval 2007-08-02"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/wiki/RDFaTC or in the series of
>>>>>> mails of Ben at the end of last week. After some smallish
>>>> bugs here
>>>>>> and there that I had to handle:-(, this implementation
>>>> passes all of these:
>>>>>> 0001, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0014, 0018,
>>>>>> 0029, 0030, 0031, 0032
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>> Great! Thanks a lot for this information.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll certainly gather your feedback (and hopefully the
>>>> feedback of
>>>>> other implementors) and publish it as a 'Implementor's Report'
>>>>> - don't know the correct W3Cish term ... but something like this :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>>>> Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>>>> JOANNEUM
>>>>> RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>>>
>> --
>>
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
--
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2007 15:12:12 UTC