Re: Turtle in HTML question/issue

On 2011-11-15, at 19:19, Ivan Herman wrote:

> On 15 Nov 2011, at 19:36, Gavin Carothers <> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> However. I wonder whether it makes sense for the surrounding RDFa content to have some effect on the turtle portion. Namely:
>>> - base setting in HTML (which is also the base for the generated RDF from RDFa) would be a @base for the encoded turtle. AFAIK we discussed that at some point, but I have not found it in [1]
>> There is a need for specific language. But I'm not sure that
>> supporting using the HTML base the best way to go. The UA would need
>> to support <base> @xml:base and the base URI DOM API in order to be
>> compliant with the HTML5 notion of base. And exactly how that
>> interacts with @base would also need to be defined. This would also do
>> some odd things to copy and paste safety.
>>> - maybe more importantly: if RDFa sets a bunch of prefix declarations (and in RDFa there are even some defaults, eg, for rdf or foaf), I wonder whether those prefix declarations should not be valid as @prefix declarations in the embedded turtle. I think that would really be useful for HTML+RDFa authors.
>> Allowing the use of RDFa prefix declarations which can come from
>> xmlns, prefix attributes, and vocab attributes would in my mind
>> needlessly complicate the consumption and authoring of Turtle <script>
>> fragments. Again it would greatly reduce copy and paste safety.
> First of all, I would consider only xmlns and prefix or, possibly, prefix only. Not vocab, that does not define a prefix.
> I understand the issue of copy paste. On the other hand, if I author an RDFa file, where I define a load of prefixes, and then I have to repeat the whole thing again is also error prone and certainly a paini the neck. Ie, I am not convinced the balance is again the reusage of prefixes. The same holds for base, referring to the previous issue…

That implies that we're expecting people to author files which include both RDFa and Turtle <script> fragments. That seems like a fundamental failure somewhere before we even start, so I'm not sure we should try and optimise for this case.

- Steve

Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited
1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK
+44 20 8439 8203
Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11
Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD

Received on Wednesday, 16 November 2011 12:43:46 UTC