Re: ISSUE-1 Proposal: RDFa Profiles via the RDFa Vocabulary, bonus: the @map attribute

On 03/15/2010 02:23 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> * A new attribute is introduced called @map. The attribute contains
>>   a set of key/value mappings. The syntax for map is the same as CSS,
>>   which will make it easier to use for those already familiar with CSS.
> 
> I thought we had a discussion a while ago on giving an alternative to
> @xmlns (confusingly enough I think we called that @vocab). This has been
> put on ice, but yes, it is worth picking this up again. At the moment I
> see that as a completely orthogonal issue to the current @profile
> discussion.

Well, as Mark proposed, it's not an orthogonal issue if that is the
mechanism that we use to extend the "list of mappings". This proposal
doesn't need it, but previous proposal does. So, while we can make this
an orthogonal discussion for this proposal, we can't make it an
orthogonal discussion for the previous proposal. I put this in here
because I believe that both proposals assume that @map is going to exist
eventually, but for different, very nuanced, reasons.

>> * @xmlns: extends the "list of mappings" in the current element scope
>>   for languages that support it.
> 
> I do not understand what you mean:-( This is already in place, right?

Yes, this already exists... I was trying to highlight that it isn't
changing and is the same as the previous proposal.

>> * @map extends the "list of mappings" in the current element scope.
> 
> ... just as @xmlns does

Exactly - @xmlns and @map behave in the same exact way in this proposal.
The reason that we have both in this proposal is because xmlns: may not
exist in languages that don't support namespaces and we want people to
be able to use RDFa in non-XML languages.

>> * A new RDFa Vocabulary is created with one term - rdfa:alias.
>>   rdfa:alias is used to extend the "list of mappings" in documents
>>   that import RDFa Profile document.
> 
> Why is that different from the proposal in
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-vocab-20100311/
> 
> (except of course for the property names, but that is a detail)

There are a few nuanced differences between this proposal and the
document you refer to above:

1. Prefixes and keywords are combined into a "list of mappings".
   rdfa:prefix and rdfa:keyword are replaced with rdfa:alias.
2. There is no JSON/JSONP encoding of vocabularies.
3. There is a new @map attribute, but in this particular proposal,
   the issue is orthogonal.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/02/01/bitmunk-payswarming/

Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 15:17:45 UTC