W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Removing @profile processing from RDFa Core

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 23:08:22 +0200
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <56303228-14D0-4421-B111-CE1FE99BC75E@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>

On Aug 14, 2011, at 20:28 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> I am making the edits necessary to remove @profile processing.... which doesn't turn out to be very difficult.  However, there is an issue we had not discussed previously.  Host Languages are able to define default collections of IRI mappings, terms, and a default vocabulary.  

Correct, we should retain that in some way or other.

> We had done this to date via an RDFa Profile document.  Going forward, we *could* just specify any mappings in a Host Language specification and require conforming processors to hard code them.  In all likelihood they would have hard coded them in an @profile world anyway.
> However, we could also require that Host Languages continue to *define* their default settings via an RDFa Profile document.  There is nothing inherently wrong with the syntax of an RDFa Profile.  What people have objected to is the inline processing of @profile by an RDFa processor.  
> So, I want to propose a couple of options:
> 	 Retain the RDFa Profile syntax definition. Allow host languages to define default terms, IRI mappings, and/or a vocabulary mapping using that syntax.

I am fine that, but making it clear, somehow, in the spec that RDFa processors are not required to parse that format which then becomes simply a vocabulary to document the RDFa profiles. 

> 	 Allow host languages to define default terms, IRI mappings, and/or a vocabulary mapping, but do not require any machine readable syntax.  Implementations would be required to hard-code the definitions.
> 	 Allow host languages to define IRI mappings and/or a vocabulary mapping. but NO TERMS.  Instead, the terms are         defined via the vocabulary. Use the proxy vocabulary technique to connect terms to their ultimate definitions (assuming the host language definition is not definitive).

I am not sure why we would remove the term definition from the vocabularies; b.t.w., we have some backward compatibility issue there anyway...


> I am putting in editor's notes and pressing ahead assuming that option 3 is the least impact option. But if we could discuss it at an upcoming call I would appreciate it.
> -- 
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> +1 763 786 8160 x120

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
Received on Sunday, 14 August 2011 21:06:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:25 UTC