- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:50:07 -0600
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
GRDDL's abstract says: > The markup includes a namespace-qualified attribute for use in > general-purpose XML documents and a profile-qualified link > relationship for use in valid XHTML documents. The GRDDL mechanism > also allows an XML namespace document (or XHTML profile document) to > declare that every document associated with that namespace (or > profile) includes gleanable data and for linking to an algorithm for > gleaning the data. So.... both the profile attribute AND the document at the XHTML namespace URI provide guidance to a GRDDL processor. Now, it may be the case that RDFa is no longer extractable via GRDDL. I don't know - I don't know anything about GRDDL. It seems likely that you cannot implement profiles via XSLT. If that is the case, we should discuss how best to proceed. On 2/14/2011 11:42 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > On Feb 15, 2011, at 24:32 , Toby Inkster wrote: > >> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:39:35 -0600 >> Shane McCarron<shane@aptest.com> wrote: >> >>> <p>The XML Namespace document associated with the >>> XHTML Family of markup languages uses the >>> mechanism for transforming XHTML+RDFa documents into >>> RDF as defined by [[GRDDL]]. >> Presumably by "RDF" it means "RDF/XML". After all, XHTML+RDFa is >> already RDF. >> >> Will this still work in RDFa 1.1? Our profile feature in particular >> seems like it requires capabilities beyond what most XSLT >> implementations can offer. > > Worse. I am not even sure I understand the goal of the original remark we inherited! Adding an explicit profile (instead of using an implicit one) does not provide any automatism for a GRDDL processor. (Note that the _this_ profile does not include any RDFa specific instructions.) > > I really wonder whether this remark should not be removed altogether. If we have an RDFa+XHTML document, why would one want to use GRDDL to transform it into RDF/XML in the first place? This is just a superfluous remark for the reader that causes more confusion (eg, harm) than good. I presume it is informative, ie, can be removed without any further ado. > > Ivan > >> -- >> Toby A Inkster >> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> >> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> >> >> > > ---- > 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 > > > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2011 12:51:28 UTC