- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:10:28 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>
- Cc: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4795CF24.4070903@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ben, > >> We should *not* consider hGRDDL as an official piece of the RDFa spec. >> I'm only trying to show how trivial it is to look for reserved keywords >> and prefix them so they can be picked up by the main RDFa parser (which >> otherwise ignores un-prefixed @rels). This approach is a pre-processing >> step, which may be how we want to word it. > > Right...but what about the spec? As I keep saying, the tricky bit is > not writing code to do it, but putting it into the spec. Everyone > keeps saying this is easy, but still no-one has tackled the > specification side. :( > > So the first question is where are you proposing to place the > pre-processing step? (In the spec, I mean.) > Nowhere:-) I do not think that this pre-processing step should be part of the spec. It is a reasonable way of implementation (my implementation has, essentially, the same general feature built-in), but it is not a spec issue. I am actually lost. I thought Manu's proposal in: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2008Jan/0152.html is a perfectly reasonable way of document this and put an end to the issue (and hGRDDL is _a_ conceptual way of implementing it, but that is not part of the document). What is wrong with Manu's stuff? ivan > Second, once the pre-processing step has run, there may still be some > non-prefixed values left that were unmatched; since these are valid > CURIEs, what are you suggesting is done with them? > > I'm sure the answer will be 'ignore them', but how, exactly? Some rule > somewhere needs to say that a different CURIE processing algorithm > needs to be applied to these values than those in other attributes. > Where would you put that rule? > > Last time we discussed this there were proposals that we actually > redefine CURIEs to have a mandatory prefix, and that was why we ran > aground. And I'm very much against having differential rules, so I'm > trying to get specific here on how you would 'switch out' the values > that you want to ignore. > > > Not wishing to preempt any replies, but like to return to a suggestion > I made the other day, and see if you'd find it acceptable in > conjunction with your hGRDDL proposal. > > I was saying that I would like to see us leave CURIE rules alone (or > if we change them, we change them everywhere), and instead modify the > definition of @rel so that it could take _both_ a safe CURIE _and_ a > LinkType. This seems right to me anyway, since we are dealing with an > attribute that already exists in XHTML, so we really shouldn't be > removing its old type. > > So, for example, a @rel value might take something like the following: > > <link rel="license" href="..." /> > <link rel="[cc:license]" href="..." /> > > This uses safe CURIEs in just the same way as attributes like @about > and @resource. > > You could still run your pre-processing step, with the minor > modification that matching values are converted to a safe CURIE, not > just a CURIE: > > <link rel="[xh:license]" href="..." /> > <link rel="[cc:license]" href="..." /> > > And in fact, since the default prefix is "...#vocab" then we wouldn't > even need to worry about the 'xh' prefix: > > <link rel="[:license]" href="..." /> > <link rel="[cc:license]" href="..." /> > > It also means that we don't need to worry about unconverted values, > since they will simply be non-CURIEs: > > <link rel="DC.Source" href="..." /> > <link rel="[:license]" href="..." /> > <link rel="[cc:license]" href="..." /> > > Our algorithms could be tweaked slightly to say that what we look for > in an attribute depends on the datatype of the attribute, and so in > the case of @rel we are only looking for safe CURIEs. > > It's not perfect -- what is? :) -- but it does mean that CURIEs behave > the same everywhere, and it allows us to ignore the unprefixed values > that didn't match the list of XHTML types, but that we don't want to > be interpreted as unprefixed CURIEs. > > 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 Tuesday, 22 January 2008 11:10:41 UTC