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

Re: Last Call Response to ISSUE-73: RDFa Profile management

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 10:16:07 +0100
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FC329DDF-B187-473C-9FAC-359E3561E494@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Sigh, I feel like a ping-pong ball.

Looking at the latest drafts

- I see the sentence you describe below listed in the RDFa Core document (which is fine with me, b.t.w.)
- Looking at the XHTML+RDFa version, under section 5.2, it says:

[[[
This specification provides a default RDFa Profile. It is available at http://www.w3.org/profile/html-rdfa-1.1.
]]]

(as an aside: why is this section non-normative?)

This means that, when processing XHTML, a processor must not refer to the the /profile/rdfa-1.1 one, because that is the XML profile. Putting it another way, in order to work properly, the content of rdfa-1.1 (the bunch of prefixes) should be added to the html-rdfa-1.1. This is not what I said in 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0182.html

and what Manu agreed with in 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0184.html

and which was a reaction on Manu's mail in 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0180.html

which was accepted by Shane in 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Feb/0181.html

So where are we now? We should either say in the XHTML+RDFa document that the XHTML includes _both_ profiles (which is allowed per the text you propose), or we have to agree that the effective profile files would duplicate content.

Ivan


On Mar 2, 2011, at 01:07 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 03/01/2011 03:22 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Sorry to continue on this thread, but...  in RDFa Core we say:
>> 
>>> The Host Language /may/ define a default RDFa Profile. If it does, the
>>> RDFa Profile triples that establish term or URI mappings associated
>>> with that profile /must not/ change without changing the profile URI.
>>> RDFa Processors /may/ embed, cache, or retrieve the RDFa Profile
>>> triples associated with that profile. 
>> 
>> We do not say 'the host language may define a bunch of profiles and
>> require they all be read in a certain order'.  Is that what we want to
>> say?   I have to say that I really hate that. 
> 
> Shane and I had a quick chat over Skype to hash some things out about
> the paragraph above... I think we settled on this language that Shane
> proposed:
> 
> """
> The Host Language MAY require the automatic inclusion of one or more
> default RDFa Profiles.  If it does, the RDFa Profile triples that
> establish term or URI mappings MUST NOT change without changing the
> associated profile URI.  RDFa Processors MAY embed, cache, or retrieve
> the RDFa Profile triples associated with that profile.
> """
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Towards Universal Web Commerce
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/01/31/web-commerce/
> 


----
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






Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 09:14:42 UTC

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