Re: The core processing step (was: Ben's rules:-)

Ivan wrote:
> It seems that, at that point, we still have a problem with the basic
> processing step in RDFa, the one I always called "Ben's rules"[1]. The
> issue that was discussed before was the exact role of @about in chaining
> the subjects. Indeed, if one takes the rule as it is today then:
> 
> <p>This photo was taken by
> <span about="http://www.ex.org" rel="dc:resource">Mark Birbeck</span>.</p>
> 
> yields
> 
> <http://www.ex.org> dc:resource <http://www.ex.org>
> 	
> which is certainly [NOT] what we want!

The way I "fixed" this in my parser is by using the "modified Ben's
rules" that does *not* use @about in the special subject resolution,
except in the special case that @rel and @rev are not present:

======
    // if there is an ABOUT at this stage, and no rel or rev
    // then that is the element's subject
    if (RDFA.getNodeAttributeValue(element,'about') &&
!RDFA.getNodeAttributeValue(element,'rel') &&
!RDFA.getNodeAttributeValue(element,'rev'))
            return RDFA.getNodeAttributeValue(element,'about');
======

I believe that is equivalent to what Ivan described. It is indeed the
one somewhat inconsistent part of RDFa right now, and I do wonder if it
means we should generally encourage people to use @resource whenever
possible: exactly what Mark was saying a couple of weeks ago.

(I'm not suggesting changing the rules, just tweaking the Primer and the
way we encourage people to use @about and @resource.)

-Ben

Received on Saturday, 11 August 2007 01:39:40 UTC