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

Re: ISSUE-1 compare and contrast Vocabularies and Profiles proposals

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:34:03 +0100
Message-ID: <4B8F7E8B.9020508@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>

On 2010-3-4 05:22 , Manu Sporny wrote:
> Ivan has already compared/contrasted the vocabulary proposal[1] and
> profiles proposal[2] in a previous thread[3]. I'll try and highlight the
> differences using less words and in a way that may help those that
> aren't heavily involved in this area to grasp the core differences
> between the current proposals. The hope is that this list will drive
> discussion on ISSUE-1 and ISSUE-11:
> Vocabulary Proposal[1]:
> * Use @vocab attribute to extend reserved keywords
> * @vocab document marked up in RDFa
> * @vocab document uses "rdfa:" vocabulary to express reserved keywords
> * Last reserved word definition wins
> * There is no default RDFa vocabulary
> * Does not support recursive inclusion of other @vocabs

Is this explicitly said? I am not sure this restriction is necessary
(though it is safe, of course)

> * Does not depend on @profile being re-instated in HTML5
> * Does not address ISSUE-11
> * Requires CORS support for Javascript implementations

I am not sure what this means...

I think that, in its current format, this proposal contains keyword->uri
mappings. Ie, no format for prefix declaration

> Profiles Proposal[2]:
> * Use @profile attribute to extend reserved words AND declare prefixes
> * @profile document marked up in RDFa or JSON
> * @profile document uses "xmlns:" to express reserved words/prefixes
> * Last reserved word/prefix definition wins
> * There is no default RDFa profile
> * Supports recursive inclusion of other @profiles
> * Depends on @profile being re-instated in HTML5
> * Does not address ISSUE-11
> * Requires CORS support for profiles that are not specified in JSON

(if my understanding is correct, Mark may correct me) This is based on
the definition prefix declarations, ie, can be used on both; but
requires a slight change on the way CURIE-s are interpreted in RDFa.

> Items that are in neither proposal that we should consider supporting:
> * There should be a default RDFa vocabulary/profile
> * The default RDFa vocabulary/profile should only be used when there is
>   no active @vocab/@profile.
> * Default profile would address ISSUE-11
> Is this a complete list of each proposal's key points as well as the
> more recent concerns with ISSUE-11 that have been raised?
> -- manu
> [1]http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa-vocab-20100111.html
> [2]http://webbackplane.com/mark-birbeck/blog/2010/02/vocabularies-token-bundles-profiles-rdfa
> [3]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Feb/0090.html


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
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf

Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 09:33:57 UTC

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