- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:56:12 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4AF7D92C.801@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote: > On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 19:42 +0100, Ivan Herman wrote: >> ... There is MediaRSS - which is RDFa being used in a non-XHTML >> dialect. > > DataRSS, surely? DataRSS is RDFa in Atom. > I am sorry. Yes, I meant DataRSS. Thanks for catching this:-) > Regarding an RSS 1.1 Core specification, it looks to me like there are > currently three "branches" of RDFa syntax: > > 1. XHTML+RDFa - the original, and a W3C Rec. DataRSS uses the same > branch of RDFa - it's essentially just got different tag names. > > 2. HTML+RDFa - small refinements on XHTML+RDFa necessary to get it to > work on an HTML DOM. > > 3. SVG 1.2 Tiny - this differs significantly from the other two in that > it may also legitimately include RDF/XML chunks. > Just for the records, AFAIK the differences are: - SVG 1.2 accepts the genuine xml verbs like xml:base and xml:lang (and the latter should be added to RDFa in general) - SVG 1.2 restricts itself to the genuine RDFa attributes and does not have special reference to @href or @src which would probably characterize the generic RDFa for XML in general. I would not consider these two as significant. There is, of course, another item that you refer to below: SVG always had the <metadata> element, and it was defined in such a way that this could include <rdf:RDF> portions, ie, RDF/XML things. The way SVG 1.2 is defined is such that the generated default graph is a merge of the RDFa processing output and such RDF/XML statements. Which is indeed, as you say below, a feature we might want to think about in general for XML in general... > RDF 1.1 Core You mean RDFa 1.1 and not RDF 1.1, right? :-) > needs to unite not only the first two, but also the third > branch - XML-based varieties of RDFa which can legitimately include > RDF/XML chunks. (It should specify whether triples from all of them form > a single graph or should/may be separated into separate graphs. SVG 1.2 does not specify separate graphs > It might > even be useful if: > > <x property="foo:bar" datatype="rdfa:reified"> > <rdf:RDF>...</rdf:RDF> > </x> > > resulted in something like the following N3: > > <> foo:bar { ... } . Wow. That would open the floodgates vs. named graphs and reification...:-) Ivan > > Just some things to think about... > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 08:56:39 UTC