- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:26:17 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4784A149.4030304@w3.org>
Hi Manu
Yet another Manu test series:-) Thanks for these!
(B.t.w.: shouldn't all these cases end up in the test series? I think
they should, because they reveal exactly those edge cases that might
shake an implementation.)
Manu Sporny wrote:
> Mark Birbeck wrote:
>
> That assumes that the 'current item' is something other than the image,
> and is defined elsewhere, like so:
>
> ------------------------ BIM Approach -------------------------------
:-) I like the name:-)
> <span about="#current-item" rel="foaf:img">
> ...
> <img src="current-item.jpg" />
> ...
> </span>
> ------------------------ Mark Approach -------------------------------
> <span about="#current-item">
> ...
> <img rel="foaf:img" src="current-item.jpg" />
> ...
> </span>
> ----------
> <#current-item> foaf:img <current-item.jpg> .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
To be precise: as far as I can see the first would work with Mark's
approach, too.
> If an image is floating on a page, by itself, then we can't link it like
> we did above:
>
> ------------------------ BIM Approach -------------------------------
> <img src="current-item.jpg" rev="foaf:img" resource="#current-item"/>
> ------------------------ Mark Approach -------------------------------
> <img about="#current-item" rel="foaf:img" src="current-item.jpg" />
> ----------
> <#current-item> foaf:img <current-item.jpg> .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
That is correct.
> or you could do like it like this (Note how nice Mark's markup looks,
> the BIM markup looks wierd):
>
> ------------------------ BIM Approach -------------------------------
> <span about="#current-item">
> <span property="dc:title">A Picture of Me</span>
> <span property="dc:name">Me</span>
> <img src="current-item.jpg" rev="foaf:img" resource="#current-item"/>
> </span>
> ------------------------ Mark Approach -------------------------------
> <span about="#current-item">
> <span property="dc:title">A Picture of Me</span>
> <span property="dc:name">Me</span>
> <img rel="foaf:img" src="current-item.jpg" />
> </span>
> ----------
> <#current-item> dc:title "A Picture of Me" .
> <#current-item> dc:name "Me" .
> <#current-item> foaf:img <current-item.jpg> .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
It is correct and I _do_ agree that the BIM approach looks a bit weird.
Having said that (and I said that before): for _any_ RDFa constructions
there will be use cases where, well, RDFa will look weird (witness the
problems raised by DanBri in another thread). We cannot win all battles:-)
> The important one, though, is how we apply rdf:type using @instanceof:
>
Yeah, that is the one that started a whole thread of discussions...
> ------------------------ BIM Approach -------------------------------
> <span about="#current-item">
> <span property="dc:title">A Picture of Me</span>
> <span property="dc:name">Me</span>
> <img src="current-item.jpg" instanceof="foaf:Image" rev="foaf:img"
> resource="#current-item"/>
> </span>
> ------------------------ Mark Approach -------------------------------
> <span about="#current-item">
> <span property="dc:title">A Picture of Me</span>
> <span property="dc:name">Me</span>
> <img rel="foaf:img" instanceof="foaf:Image" src="current-item.jpg" />
> </span>
> ----------
> <#current-item> dc:title "A Picture of Me" .
> <#current-item> dc:name "Me" .
> <#current-item> foaf:img <current-item.jpg> .
> <current-item.jpg> rdf:type foaf:Image .
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Well... I believe that is not the case in Mark's approach. There are two
cases: either we look at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080103/
as it stands now, or include a change I actually proposed in
http://www.w3.org/mid/477E148C.3090009@w3.org
Let us analyse them separately.
1. In the _current_, documented approach the [new subject] in <img> will
be set to a new BNode by virtue of @instanceof, which has a higher
priority than @src. Ie, we would get a
[] a foaf:Image;
foaf:img <current-item.jpg> .
2. However, I think Mark also agreed with my analysis that @src should
move up the hierarchy. So look at
http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/2008/ED-rdfa-syntax-20080103/
with the difference that in step 2/3 @src handling must appear right
after @about. That means that [new subject] will be set to
<current-item.jpg>. That will then be used for typing, ie, we will
indeed get
<current-item.jpg> a foaf:Image .
However, because @src is also kept to play a similar role to
@resource/@href (in step 5 of the processing rules), @src is also used
to establish the value of [current object resource], we will also get
the weird triple:
<current-item.jpg> foaf:img <current-item.jpg>.
Unless I misread the syntax document, that case is definitely problematic...
A way to amend that in Mark's model would be the extra rule somewhere
which says that if @resource, @href, or @src is used to set the value of
[new subject] then it must be taken of the equation. But, well, what
this would mean is that <img> will end up with a hanging rel, namely
<current-item.jpg> foaf:img ??? .
but this hanging rel will be never resolved, because <img> does not have
any children.
Indeed, the BIM version, though a bit weird due to the presence of
@resource, works, because @src is taken out of the process in setting
the [current object resource] (not in the current syntax document but, I
believe, the way it should be in the BIM model).
Ivan
P.S. (I _hate_ to say that, but this was always my use case on
introducing @trel and @trev instead of a single @instanceof:-(. It is
indeed the presence and the behaviour of @instanceof that messes up
things here. However, the current BIM model with the @src behaviour
seems to be a fair compromise after all...)
> Does that seem to be everybody's understanding of the differences
> between BIM/Mark with regards to @src?
>
> -- manu
>
--
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 Wednesday, 9 January 2008 10:26:15 UTC