RE: [RDFa TC] Update, report, and further actions

Shane,

Great. Let's do it this way. 

#A_ for attributes, 
#E_ for elements, and
#P_ for productions

Please let me know when you're done so that I can
update the RDFa TC Manifest document.
Please note as well that I'll be off-line next week
and I'll very likely resume the work from 5 Nov on ...

Thanks again!

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Shane McCarron [mailto:shane@aptest.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:50 PM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael
>Cc: Ben Adida; RDFa mailing list; SWD Working Group
>Subject: Re: [RDFa TC] Update, report, and further actions
>
>In XHTML M12N we use #s_ for sections, and #a_ for appendices. 
>
>My opinion is that we can easily extend this to use #A_ for 
>attributes, 
>#E_ for elements, and #P_ for productions.  It will scale well.
>
>For anything else that might get referenced.... I think it would be a 
>good idea to use the name from closest section heading - assigning a 
>name if there is not one there already (e.g., section 6.2 does 
>not have 
>one right now, but should be "#s_object_resolution")
>
>If this works for you all, I will implement it immediately.
>
>Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> Shane,
>>
>> Thanks for this quick *and* concise reply. I very much
>> appreciate you doing the hard part of the work ... so let's
>> see if my 2c are worth it ;)
>>
>> Two annotation forms come immediately into my mind:
>>
>> 1. An 'attribute-driven' one, where we assign ultra-cool URIs
>> to according RDFa attributes. 
>>
>> Example:
>> Section '9.2.1. The about attribute' would be known as
>> 'http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#attribute_about'
>>
>> or 
>>
>> 2. A rather RDFish one, where we assign ultra-cool URIs based on
>> the role an RDFa attribute plays in the generation of a triple.
>>
>> Example:
>> Section '9.2.1. The about attribute'
>> would be known as 
>'http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#explicit_subject'
>>
>>  
>> Both proposed solutions have pro's and con's - please pick one
>> (or propose an even more cooler scheme, etc. ;)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 	Michael
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>>   
>>  http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>  
>>
>>   
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Shane McCarron [mailto:shane@aptest.com] 
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 3:45 PM
>>> To: Hausenblas, Michael
>>> Cc: Ben Adida; RDFa mailing list; SWD Working Group
>>> Subject: Re: [RDFa TC] Update, report, and further actions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>>>     
>>>> the ':specificationReference' property will actually
>>>> point to, e.g., 'http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#sec_9.2.5.'
>>>>
>>>> @Shane: Any preferences?
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> Yes - don't do that ;-)  For each point in the spec that 
>you want to 
>>> reference, please let me know and please suggest the name for a 
>>> permanent ID.  Cool URIs don't change, and section numbers 
>can change 
>>> easily.  I am happy to annotate the document - just let me know.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 
>786-8160 x120
>>> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>>> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>
>-- 
>Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
>Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
>ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 06:49:56 UTC