- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:32:44 +0100
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
I want to reraise my position: leave class alone, and use something new for what we want. I still have the feeling that @role can do the job. Steven On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:56:52 +0100, Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at> wrote: > > 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 Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:33:02 UTC