- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 16:02:54 +0200
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <467A850E.7070304@w3.org>
Mark, adding questions, instead of answering them:-) Where does <> xh:img <s> . come from your example <img src="s" alt="alt">? Do we have a rule that all XHTML elements that are used are somehow reflected in the generated triplets with this special 'xh:' namespace? I do not see a reason to do that implicitly. Also, are we sure that <s> rdfs:label "alt". is the best representation for this? I am afraid of finding ourselves in some endless discussion with, say, WAI people on the meaning of the 'alt' attribute; one could also say that <s> rdfs:seeAlso "alt". makes more sense in the way they are referring to "alt". Let alone your choice of dc:description for longdesc; should we hardwire a specific namespace into RDFa (ie, dc)? I am a little bit afraid of adding 'extra' semantics to a number of other xhtml attributes this way. If we do that, should we also assign an explicit triplet to @title in an 'a' element? After all, that could also be interpreted as an rdf:label... Where do we stop? Obviously, > <div about="#me" class="foaf:Person"> > <span property="foaf:name">Mark Birbeck</span> > <img rel="foaf:img" src="mark-birbeck.jpg" alt="Mugshot of Mark > Birbeck" /> > </div> > > which would yield: > > <#me> > a foaf:Person; > foaf:name "Mark Birbeck"; > foaf:img <mark-birbeck.jpg> . makes a lot of sense and reusing the src attribute to denote the object (or the subject with @rev) is probably a clear and good idea. I wonder whether this is where we should stop... Ivan Mark Birbeck wrote: > > The first point is that I think we should change the title of this > issue to be more specific: > > "How does RDFa deal with img/@src" > > This is because @src is not allowed 'everywhere' in HTML and XHTML 1.x > in the same way that it is in XHTML 2, so we don't need to look at it > generically. (I.e., there's probably not a lot that we're going to > find in common between <script> and <img>.) > > However, if people think changing an issue title mid-stream is wrong, > then the other alternative is to mark issue 42 as one for the > future--when we get to XHTML 2--and open a new issue for img/@src. > > > INTERPRETATION OF HTML/XHTML > > In keeping with the idea that the host language for RDFa may provide > semantics independent of RDFa, then the first step in trying to > resolve ISSUE 42 would be to ask what metadata we could derive form a > 'vanilla' HTML document. > > Given this mark-up: > > <img src="s" alt="alt" longdesc="desc"> > > we could say that we have an image, a label for the image, and a > description: > > <> > xh:img <s> . > > <s> > rdfs:label "alt"; > dc:description <desc> . > > NOTE: @longdesc holds a URI, not text. > > NOTE: In all of the following examples I include a value for @alt > since that is best practice in HTML/XHTML mark-up for accessibility > purposes. @longdesc however, is not regarded in the same way. So even > though it's irrelevant from an RDFa point of view, I think we should > keep that in any resulting documentation and samples. > > A possible additional triple would be to add a 'type' of > dcmitype:Image. I'm quite in favour of this, but some may think it > best left to an inference layer. Comments please. > > > ADDING RDFA > > Once we've agreed on the semantic interpretations of existing mark-up > patterns, we then need to look at how RDFa can be used to enhance > them. > > SPECIFYING A PREDICATE > > The first use-case would be to use the image as the value of a > predicate, for example in a FOAF description. The most obvious way to > do this would be with @rel: > > <div about="#me" class="foaf:Person"> > <span property="foaf:name">Mark Birbeck</span> > <img rel="foaf:img" src="mark-birbeck.jpg" alt="Mugshot of Mark > Birbeck" /> > </div> > > which would yield: > > <> > xh:img <mark-birbeck.jpg> . > > <#me> > a foaf:Person; > foaf:name "Mark Birbeck"; > foaf:img <mark-birbeck.jpg> . > > <mark-birbeck.jpg> > rdfs:label "Mugshot of Mark Birbeck" . > > NOTE: You could argue that the subject of the first triple is <#me>, > rather than <>. In this context we can decide however we want it to > be. Since the triple is mainly of use to systems that are trying to > understand the structure of the document, as opposed to understanding > the embedded semantics I prefer the approach I've put here, but it's > not a big deal to change it. > > > There are also situations where @rev would be useful. For example, > some search results on Shuttr ;) coiuld look like this: > > <div about="#me" class="foaf:Person"> > Some pictures in which <span property="foaf:name">Mark > Birbeck</span> appears: > <img rev="foaf:depicts" src="xtech-2007-lunch.jpg" alt="People > having lunch at XTech 2007" /> > <img rev="foaf:depicts" src="www-2007-lunch.jpg" alt="People > having lunch at WWW 2007" /> > <img rev="foaf:depicts" src="tripping-over.jpg" alt="Some idiot > falling over" /> > </div> > > SPECIFYING TYPE > > Generally it is better to establish a relationship between an image > and something else, by using a predicate like foaf:depiction, > foaf:img, foaf:depicts, etc.. Then the fact that we are dealing with a > foaf:Image falls out easily by inreference. However, there may be > situations where all that is required is to indicate the _type_ of the > resource, without the resource being in a relationship with anything > else. If there are such use cases, then this could be done with > @class, but there is a problem, as outlined below. > > NOTE: This mark-up assumes that @class gives us rdf:type. Since this > is not a resolved issue then the exact mechanism used to achieve the > following might need to change to be drawn into line with the other > resolution. > > At first sight the following seems legitimate: > > <img src="a-spider.jpg" alt="A picture of a spider" class="foaf:Image" /> > > However, what if we extend it by placing @about on the element. Using > indentation to show ownership, we could interpret the addition of > @about as either this: > > <img > about="#me" > src="a-spider.jpg" > alt="A picture of a spider" > class="foaf:Image" > /> > > or this: > > <img > about="#me" > class="foaf:Image" > src="a-spider.jpg" > alt="A picture of a spider" > /> > > The second example seems wrong, but only because we know the meaning > of "foaf:Image"; what if we had the following mark-up instead: > > <img > about="#me" > class="foaf:Person" > rel="foaf:depiction" > src="a-spider.jpg" > alt="A picture of a spider" > /> > > It now seems perfectly natural to attach @class to the @about. > > So we have an issue, and that is, what does @class mean on an HTML image? > > My feeling is that we should 'hard-code' the rule that @class applies > to @src, even in the presence of an @about. > > Regards, > > Mark > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 14:02:59 UTC