- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 18:00:46 +0200
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On Aug 25, 2011, at 17:47 , Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Thanks Lin, > > that is valuable information. But, indeed, it would be very important to see whether the same setup could work using RDFa's @about. > > As you may have seen on Jeni's G+ discussion, I have given some thought to this in terms of RDFa. Everything can be done of course but the issue we would be facing (and I do not know how microdata solves that, actually) is what 'state' would the referred entry be. What happens to language setting, to @prefix settings, types/vocabularies, etc. What I am afraid of is that the 'referred' part would generate different RDF triples depending on where it is included into, and that sounds problematic to me... > > if the @prefix was limited to the html, head and body elements, it would somewhat reduce the possible differences for the prefix bindings at least (that's issue 102). ... which, I believe, has been closed without change for now... > In the worst case, there could be different @prefix values for the head and body, the problem would then occur if the primary markup containg an itemref is in the body and the referenced markup is in the head. From my understanding of Lin's use case though, it seems that everything would live in the body element, in which case having @prefix on body or html would solve that issue. For the records, Drupal 7 bundles all its prefix bindings in the html element, and we encourage people to add their prefix bindings there (via an API) as opposed to harcoding them in HTML. As I said the @prefix usage has not changed. But it is not only @prefix. Same issue could happen with @vocab or with @lang... Ivan > > Steph. > > > Cheers and thanks! > > Ivan > > On Aug 25, 2011, at 16:54 , Lin Clark wrote: > > > Stéphane asked me to send an email regarding http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/105 > > > > Something that came out of the microdata BoF at DrupalCon was the fact that themers are moving fields outside of the entity wrapper. This causes problems for both RDFa and microdata because the item is no longer properly nested. > > > > Because microdata offers the itemref, we should be able to enable that pretty seamlessly with microdata. We would be able to have a checkbox on the field settings form that says this field uses an itemref. A metatag with itemref would be placed in the body and would point to the field wrapper. However, I'm not sure whether this is necessary in RDFa since 'about' could be used. I haven't dug into the code yet, so I'm not sure whether an itemref in RDFa would make this easier or take the same effort. > > > > -Lin > > > > -- > > Lin Clark > > DERI, NUI Galway > > > > lin-clark.com > > twitter.com/linclark > > > > > ---- > 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 > > > > > > > ---- 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 Thursday, 25 August 2011 15:58:08 UTC