- From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:24:06 +0000
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Hello Ben, Manu On 17/03/2010 02:15, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 03/16/2010 07:40 PM, Ben Adida wrote: > >> Toby wrote: >> >>> I like the general idea, but how about reusing typeof instead: >>> >> This is interesting, I like it. I just want to point out, though, that >> this doesn't solve the problem Google has, where they want to bundle a >> bunch of existing vocabs together without delving into RDF Schema. >> > Right, I like the url approach google vocabs are using at the moment in microdata see: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/03/microdata-support-for-rich-snippets.html If you wanted to represent the microdata example found on that page in rdfa it would go something like.... <div about="" typeof="http://data-vocabulary.org/Review"> <h1>Review: <span property="itemreviewed">L'Amourita Pizza</span></h1> Written by <span property="reviewer">Bob Smith</span> <span property="dtreviewed" content="2010-01-15">Jan 15, 2010</span> Rated: <span property="rating">4.5</span> - Exellent </div> > +1 to the idea and Martin for proposing it and Toby for modifying > it to re-use a pre-existing RDFa term. Ben does have a point that this > doesn't solve the Google vocabulary issue. This is effectively the > "default prefix declaration mechanism" discussion... Toby had raised it > earlier in the year: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0019.html > I like that approach as well, the @vocab approach was similar too, but why mint a new attribute when for all intents and purposes re-using @typeof ( or any suitable existing attribute ) can do the trick, A bit 'hacky' as Stephen said, but a good one. > The discussion has also been raised several times before in the RDFa TF > telecon. So, I don't think this is a replacement for RDFa Profiles, but > could be another way for authors to markup content when all of the terms > that they want to use come from one vocabulary (for example, FOAF, > Dublin Core or VCard). The fact that you don't have to dereference > anything, but get to use short keywords is definitely a positive aspect > of the proposal. > Exactly, Thank you Manu. Best wishes. -- Martin McEvoy
Received on Wednesday, 17 March 2010 11:24:40 UTC