W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > June 2007

Re: Validation Update: success!

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:01:05 -0700
Message-ID: <467FE6C1.7000107@adida.net>
To: Keith Alexander <k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com>
CC: CÚdric Mesnage <cedric.mesnage@lu.unisi.ch>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Keith Alexander wrote:
> So, you would expect a triplr/sponger-like application to read my
> document (with an xhtml+RDFa DTD, but a GRDDL profile that uses
> different rules), parse it for RDFa triples and augment it with the
> GRDDL'd triples (as if the @profile had contained the RDF uri as well),
> or should one override the other?

I think each route would be an acceptable way to extract triples, and if
you want all triples, you should probably do both.

> Personally, I think that if a @profile has actually been declared, it is
> safer for a triplr/sponger to assume that that's *all* it should parse
> for - despite other apparent indications.

So you're saying that HTML can have no built-in RDF semantics? That
would be very unfortunate, as there already is quite a bit. I don't
think we should look at HTML as this thing frozen in time that is only
presentation. A GRDDL-only approach to parsing discards so much DOM
information about where the structure appears that it is simply not a
sufficient technique for bridging the clickable and semantic webs.

> This afternoon, for instance, tommorris was asking on #swig  why
> http://triplr.org/rdf/http://tom.opiumfield.com/blog/ threw errors.
> It turned out (we think), to be that two rdf:IDs of the same value were
> being generated. In this case, it was because triplr was applying the
> hCard transformation twice - once due to the @profile, and a second time
> on it's own initiative (because it saw a 'vCard' classname ).

I don't see why there's a problem if the same triples are generated
twice... if we *have* to choose between a profile and a DTD, then we'd
go with the DTD because we need things to validate, and it is fairly
important to define what those new attributes mean semantically.

> I think this could equally have been caused by trying to parse an
> RDFa-look-a-like syntax as RDFa, as well as the GRDDL profile specified.

Again, I'm not sure why having the same triple generated multiple times
is a problem. I'm pretty sure that, mathematically, twice the same
triple is logically equivalent to that triple occurring only once.

Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 16:01:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:50 UTC