Re: PROPOSAL: Extending @rel/@rev reserved value set

Hi Manu,

I disagree that there is no issue here, and I'd certainly like for
triples to be generated by the following mark-up:

  <link rel="next" href="..." />
  <link rel="prev" href="..." />

Lots of nice things can be done with this data.

I suppose what it comes down to is that although you are quite right
that this is outside the scope of RDFa, it's not outside the scope of
_RDFa in XHTML_, which is, for the time being, what we are dealing
with.

As to the difference between XHTML and Dublin Core, in HTML 4.01 and
XHTML, values for @rel and @rev are clearly defined. Authors are not
supposed to use other values unless they provide a value for @profile.
In the case of Dublin Core this *was* done, as can be seen here:

  <http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-html/>

So we actually have three sets of 'legacy' values, in a way:

 * those that come from HTML, which can be present without a profile;

 * those that come from other taxonomies (like DC) that will be accompanied
   by a @profile value;

 * those that are of other types, like OpenID, and so on.

We have so far agreed the those in the first category should be
incorporated into the triple store (although you are now disagreeing
with that :)). We have also generally agreed that those in the third
category should *not* go into the triple store, although a processor
is free to put some interpretation on these values into a separate
graph.

But in my mind the second category could usefully be placed into the
triple store too, since they have been clearly defined. In other
words, due to the presence of @profile they are not the 'spurious' --
or 'extra' ;) -- triples that everyone is so keen to avoid.

I've been looking at this for a little while now, because I've been
wondering if in making this kind of thing possible, we may find a
solution to the broader question. (And of course, we may not. :))

Regards,

Mark

On 11/10/2007, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>
> Shane McCarron wrote:
> > As per today's discussion, I would like to propose that we 1) merge the
> > reserved values from @property in [1] into the set of reserved values
> > for @rel / @rev in [2].
> > I would then propose that we 2) delete the list of reserved values for
> > @property.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#sec_9.2.5.
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070927/#sec_9.2.6.
>
> +1 to not have reserved values for @property.
>
> Just to take a step back... do we really want to specify what reserved
> values are for @rel and @rev. Do we have to provide "backwards
> compatability"? Why are we providing backwards compatibility for
> LinkTypes in XH, but not in Dublin Core? As far as I'm concerned, these
> two should be treated the same - outside of the scope of RDFa. It would
> simplify the syntax document and make RDFa much easier to understand.
>
> We're not going to break anything by not listing these values as
> reserved. The Syntax document also clearly states that extra triples can
> be generated if needed, outside of the default graph[1]. Shouldn't
> "backwards compatability" be the job of each RDFa parser implementation?
>
> Why can't we treat old XHTML @rel/@rev LinkTypes as outside of the scope
> of RDFa?
>
> PROPOSAL: We don't have any reserved values for RDFa. An RDFa conformant
> parser MAY generate extra triples to provide backwards compatibility.
> This is strongly encouraged, but not required.
>
> -- manu
>
> [1]http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2007/ED-rdfa-syntax-20070921/#processorconf
>
> --
> Manu Sporny
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Bitmunk Launches World's First Open Music Recommendation Service
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2007/09/09/bitmunk-music-recommendation/
>
>


-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 17:32:39 UTC