W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > December 2010

Re: Last Call comments on RDFa Core (Issue-86)

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:38:41 -0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <dcadc503db2275b0bed107bc011e6b12.squirrel@webmail-mit.w3.org>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "W3C RDFa WG" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
> Just for the records, and to link to the reference: I believe most of
> Harry's  comments boil down to the issue the group discussed in the past:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/46
>
> The issue was closed, but can of course be reopened if the group wishes to
> do so as an answer to Last Call comments.
>

I think *two* other separate issues should be opened for  (if they don't
exist already)

1) Using XHTML vocabulary document as a default profile for common
vocabularies.

  Earlier I note that Toby Inkster thought that only W3C recs could
register there. But this would exclude work like OGP or FOAF that is
unlikely to be a Rec. We could run it like either the XPointer registry
at W3C or in some new way, i.e. by looking at common prefixes for common
vocabularies using empirical data.

2) Adding in extra blank node default subjects as a feature of RDF
Profiles vocabularies, i.e. to make vocabularies like OGP produce valid
triples. Note that in some instances of RDFa processing the profile is
retrieved anyways, so might as well make it do very useful things.


> Ivan
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman
> Tel:+31 641044153
> http://www.ivan-herman.net
>>
>
Received on Monday, 13 December 2010 18:38:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC