- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:13:33 +0200
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46BC566D.4090607@w3.org>
Hi Mark, I swear I did not do it on purpose! But I just made a page where I've put: [[[ package is also <a href="http://dev.w3.org/2004/PythonLib-IH/pyRdfa/">available for download</a>. ]]] Yes, this is not RDFa but, had I wanted, I could have said something like [[[ <a rel="namesp:code" href="http://dev.w3.org/2004/PythonLib-IH/pyRdfa/">available for download</a> ]]] The text of the link is, sort of, o.k. for the flow of the HTML text, but I do not think it is o.k. for the label of http://dev.w3.org/2004/PythonLib-IH/pyRdfa/. However, if I take your approach, _I do not have a choice_, that _will_ be the rdfs:label. And that is what I do not like: I've lost control. By the way, one of the differences in our perceptions may come from your remark: [[[ we try to provide an *interpretation* of the mark-up in triple form, ]]] which is not the way I look at it. We do not try to interpret the mark-up; we give tools to the user to add 'metadata' (yey, I used the m-word:-) to his/her own text in a specific mark-up. I guess we can safely agree that we disagree on that:-) and let the group vote on this... Ivan Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > >> I understand the intention, I see the solution, but I am not convinced:-(. > > :) > > >> I think we should keep such 'implicit' rules of triple generation to the >> minimum. We try to second guess the author's intentions here and I am >> not sure that is justified. > > We don't actually try to 'second guess' intentions at all; we try to > provide an *interpretation* of the mark-up in triple form, that could > be said to be legitimate based on the HTML spec. If I say @rel="x" > then the HTML spec says that I'm establishing a relationship between > one document and another, so we can legitimately use the contents of > @rel as a predicate. Similary if I say <a href="x">y</a> then I have > unavoidably provided text to label a link--there is no second guessing > of the author's intentions going on there at all, since in fact the > browser is obliged to use that label on the link. > > >> There are a number of Web pages, for >> example, that use the (absolutely horrible!) 'click here' or 'see here', >> or similar content to <a>. Yes, it is a very bad design, but it is >> there. Ie, we will get a bunch of meaningless rdfs:label-s... > > Now it's my turn to be not convinced...so what? :) > > >> As you say, the construction: >> >> <div about="#song" instanceof="hmedia:Audio"> >> <a rel="hmedia:sample" href="http://www.bitmunk.com/sample/6011101"> >> <span property="rdfs:label">A Sample</span> >> </a> >> </div> >> >> works, it makes it explicit what the user wants, and also gives him/her >> to possibility to fine tune what should be a label and what shouldn't. > > But like I say, they have already said what should be a label--that's > the contents of the <a>. I'd be interested to hear other points of > view, but I don't see using the text as an rdfs:label as very > controversial. The reason it hasn't been in the spec for so long--and > I've had this pending action item to 'work it back in'--is because > it's been difficult to come up with a simply rule that justifies > attaching the label to the @href. Now we're dealing with chaining > again, it seems more logical. > > >> It also opens the flood gates to a bunch of other questions. Do you want >> to introduce the same mechanism everywhere where one would use @href >> (after all, we opened this particular flood gate by allowing @href >> everywhere!)? What happens if I use @resource on <a> but no @href? What >> happens if there is additional markup within <a>? All set of additional >> issues that (1) has to be answered (2) has to be specified in the >> syntax, thereby making it more complicated (3) has to be properly >> explained in a primer document (4) has to be documented with test cases, >> etc, etc. I just do not see that avoiding one additional <span> >> justifies these costs... > > I don't see it as being so complicated. In my view this kind of thing > makes things much simpler, because authors add less code, not more. > > In my version, the author simply creates a link using ordinary > mark-up, in the way they are used to as an HTML author: > > <a rel="p" href="o">label</a> > > Our RDFa rules then say that this link--which HTML defines as being a > combination of a target document with some text to describe the > navigation to it--will generate two triples (which reflects that > combination). The first triple describes the relationship between the > current document and the target, and the second describes the label > used to refer to that target document. > > In the 'longhand' version though, the author has to add more mark-up > to indicate that they want a label for the link, which is far more > confusing, since most authors will rightly say, but haven't I already > specified a label? This won't get done, since there is no particular > reason that authors would think they need to do this, and then we have > nothing in our parsed output that can be used to label the links. > > Regards, > > Mark > -- 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 Friday, 10 August 2007 12:13:39 UTC