Re: GRDDL and XHTML+RDFa 1.1

On Feb 15, 2011, at 13:50 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> 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.

The current XSLT is for RDFa 1.0. Fabien Gandon wrote it; I have no idea whether he intends to upgrade it to RDFa 1.1. And I have no idea whether the profile mechanism can be implemented in GRDDL. And I am not sure that even the current script is general enough to handle the non-XHTML case, so we may have to restrict that to XHML only.

However... my understanding of GRDDL is that the namespace document may include a guidance to GRDDL. If it is already there, that will not change because we are not changing the namespace document to (X)HTML. I would separate the profile issue from that.

Users may, of course, add their own, GRDDL specific profiles if they wish. There is no obligation to use only the RDFa profiles for GRDDL purposes.

Ivan



>  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
> 
> 


----
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