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

Re: Spec update with vocabulary expansion

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:04:05 -0400
To: public-rdfa-wg WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5DC55284-C479-44DD-B5BB-C646975E2CC6@greggkellogg.net>
I just finished implementing @vocab expansion in my processor and came across a couple of things we might consider adding to the spec:

For my own testing, I used DOAP as the @vocab value, which returns an RDF/XML representation of the vocabulary. Without having an RDF/XML processor also loaded, this results in a load error, but many other things could result in an error. I elected to add a rdfa:UnresovedVocabulary warning to the processor graph in this case.

To appendix B.2, add:

[[[
rdfa:UnresolvedVocabulary a rdfs:Class, owl:Class;
  dc:description "warning; to be used when a referenced vocabulary fails to load" .
]]]

Also, rules rdfs5 and rdfs11 don't add interesting information to the default graph; they're only useful as rules to expand of subClass/subProperty chains. I place these in a separate context (t-box). There's no harm in adding them to the default graph, but we should consider adding wording that allows these triples to be removed from the default graph might be useful as a note.

To 10.1 Details of the RDFa Vocabulary Expansion, change:

[[[
The processor SHOULD NOT add the triples appearing in the vocabulary graph to the (expanded) default graph.
]]]

to

[[[
The processor SHOULD NOT add the triples appearing in the vocabulary graph, or created as the result of expanding rules rdfs5 and rdfs11 to the (expanded) default graph.
]]]

We also need to discuss how we should add tests to the RDFa Test Suite, wether as "optional" tests in the main manifest, or as a completely separate manifest and test suite.

Gregg
Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 20:04:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:52 UTC