RE: [RDFa] The CLASS attribute

Ben,
 
I do support your proposal as this is an important issue - sometimes
also called triple bloat - not _only_  mentioned by TimBL ;)
 
Indeed this was one of the things I had in mind when contemplating
about levels [1]. Not only the subset of RDF we aim to support with
RDFa may go into a level, but also the way we interpret the attributes.
Say, we have two levels: strict (interpreting only attributes _with_ NS)
and verbose (taking _all_ attributes as input to generate an RDF graph.
 
Note: This could go into a profile definition as well IMHO - 
      Karl, any comments?
 
Cheers,
       Michael
 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/#sec4
 
----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
 Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
----------------------------------------------------------


________________________________

From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Ben Adida
Sent: Tue 2007-02-13 21:06
To: RDFa; SWD WG
Subject: [RDFa] The CLASS attribute





Hi all,

(also following up from our telecon)

So we have agreed to use the CLASS attribute as syntactic sugar for
rdf:type. That works really nicely in all of our examples, but it
creates a lot of "local triples" in your average HTML. I know we've
argued many times that it doesn't matter in terms of machine processing,
but the point is that this is a really bad unexpected outcome for many
users, including TimBL.

So I have a proposal: we keep using CLASS, but RDFa provides triples
only for namespaced CLASSes. I know we've talked about just "turning off
local triples" in the parser as a way to get over the bad first
impression that people have, but I think we need to go further than
that: TimBL pointed to an example that can really get confusing:

<div class="notice" about="#me">
blah blah blah
</div>

gives:

<#me> rdf:type notice

No matter how you look at it, that's semantically wrong.

We need to make sure that only explicit classes become types, and the
easiest way to do that is to require scoped classes.

Thoughts?

-Ben

Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 20:57:08 UTC