- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 21:02:08 -0500
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, This is an official response from the RDFa Working Group concerning your comment on prefix preservation during the creation of XMLLiterals: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/60 Gregg Kellogg wrote: > Is there new wording for RDFa core 1.1 7.5 step 11 on what needs to > be done for XMLLiteral context preservation? I recall that this was > essentially going to revert to just xmlns preservation for all > in-scope definitions. The RDFa Working Group discussed this issue last week, the discussion is captured in the minutes: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-01-13#ISSUE__2d_60__3a__XMLLiteral_context_preservation The conversation revolved around how complicated the processing rules would become if we were to preserve everything that could potentially affect triple processing. That is, in order to re-create the proper triples, an RDFa processor would need to preserve @xmlns, @prefix, @profile, @vocab, <base>, and the current subject. Furthermore, processing would need to be performed on any URL that was relative to the current document when adding these attributes to the top-most level of an XMLLiteral. In general, there was concern that the payback for preserving all of this state would be minimal and not worth the added complexity to the specification. The group decided that the behavior of RDFa 1.0 is sufficient for almost every use case. That is, only values declared via xmlns: are preserved in XMLLiterals generated via RDFa Processors. If a web developer would like to ensure that the same triples are generated if the XMLLiteral snippet is processed by itself, it is up to them to include the proper subject, prefixes, and profiles in the intended XMLLiteral. Thank you for your feedback and your continued input into the RDFa Working Group, Gregg. There have been a number of changes and improvements made due to your feedback over the past and the RDFa specification is better for it. Since this is a Last Call issue, we ask that you please respond to this e-mail and let us know if this solution works for you. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Linked Data in JSON http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/10/30/json-ld/
Received on Monday, 17 January 2011 02:02:39 UTC