- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 10:15:47 +0200
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Cc: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46DBC2B3.4010609@w3.org>
Ben Adida wrote: > Quick note: according to current resolutions and implementations, we > currently do *not* use @name. > > I lean towards what Mark is saying: I don't think we should add it, > especially after we agreed not to use @class with a CURIE because of its > existing type and the potential confusion (I know that @class is more > complicated because of CSS, but the principle of not overriding the > previous data type still stands.) > I will *not* put a big fight on that:-) Ivan > In any case, the DCMI decision to endorse RDFa upon completion is fantastic! > > -Ben > > Ivan Herman wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> you actually pre-empted me; I just come back from the DC conference >> where the issue vs RDFa came up. Having talked to the DCMI guys, here is >> the standpoint of DCMI at the moment: >> >> - in the first round, DCMI will update their document to include DC >> information in the HTML header using the current 'DC.tite' scheme. That >> will be done using a special profile in the header, and they will also >> provide a GRDDL transform on the profile document level. Ie, if somebody >> uses this approach, and a GRDDL processor, the RDF information can be >> extracted using GRDDL. >> >> However, that is clearly a mechanism in <head> only. >> >> - once RDFa is finalized and officially published, DCMI will endorse >> RDFa and propagate to use _full RDFa syntax everywhere_, with no special >> requirement. Ie, xmlns for the namespaces, dc:title syntax (both in the >> header and elsewhere), etc. >> >> Ie: as far as DCMI goes (which _is_ our biggest customer for that >> issue), the whole question on 'dotted' vs. 'coloumn' synstax is moot, >> and we should put it on ice for our own technical discussion. I think >> this is a win-win. But this also means, that we do *not* really need any >> hGRDDL rules for this use case either.... >> >> This is a bit orthogonal to the @name issue that you refer to below. My >> impression is that we should keep to what we decided before. The various >> adaptations to different targets can still be done, after all >> >> name="DC.title dc:title" >> >> is also perfectly valid, isn't it? Ie, I am not sure why Bob's mechanism >> would shed any new light... >> >> Ivan >> >> Mark Birbeck wrote: >>> Hi Ivan, >>> >>> I was just reading this: >>> >>> <http://www.snee.com/bobdc.blog/2007/08/automated_rdfa_output_from_dit.html> >>> >>> from Bob du Charme. In it he makes the point that it's very easy to >>> change your server-side generation code from generating this: >>> >>> <meta name="DC.Title" content="My Topic" /> >>> >>> to generating this: >>> >>> <meta property="dc:title" content="My Topic" /> >>> >>> I was about to fire off an email pointing out that you can actually >>> use @name as well, and then it occurred to me that perhaps we should >>> actually _exclude_ @name from our processing. In other words, rather >>> than being indifferent about this we would say it doesn't actually >>> work: >>> >>> <meta name="dc:title" content="My Topic" /> >>> >>> By doing this we can keep @name 'unpolluted' with new stuff, and when >>> we see it we can be sure that it contains legacy values. We therefore >>> create two possible scenarios, which may prove useful. >>> >>> The first is that Bob's server-side code could actually generate this, instead: >>> >>> <meta name="DC.Title" property="dc:title" content="My Topic" /> >>> >>> Since he is in control of what his server is generating, he might >>> choose to target both RDFa parsers (with @property) and existing HTML >>> processors like search-engine crawlers, with @name. This might be >>> particularly useful if the <meta> property is something that a >>> search-engine might make use of, but the value is something that we >>> want to use in an RDFa processor, like this: >>> >>> <meta name="description" property="dc:description" content="My description" /> >>> >>> The second scenario is that our hGRDDL rules can be more focused--at >>> least in relation to the <head> of the document. If the pre-processor >>> were to detect certain values in @name, then all it has to do is add a >>> 'property' attribute to the element, containing a more RDF-friendly >>> value, and which will be picked up by the RDFa processor. If a >>> 'property' attribute already exists then the pre-processor need do >>> nothing. >>> >>> By explicitly confining the 'legacy' problem to the one attribute--or >>> at least a large chunk of the legacy problem--we might find this issue >>> easier to manage; we'll probably find it easier to define the >>> 'mapping' rules. >>> >>> Any thoughts on that? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Mark >>> > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 3 September 2007 08:15:43 UTC