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

Re: GRDDL and XHTML+RDFa 1.1

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 06:50:07 -0600
Message-ID: <4D5A767F.5010702@aptest.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:24 UTC