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

The current technical proposals to answer to the schema.org related issues on RDFa 1.1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:13:30 +0100
Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Ramanathan V Guha <guha@google.com>, Péter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Message-Id: <86C5C9D2-393F-4C61-9670-98084274C228@w3.org>

The RDFWA has been fairly active the past few weeks. The goal is to find a technical solution to all the various issues that were raised through the schema.org discussion. We think we have a technical design now, but feedback on this, and on the possible consequences, are important at this point.

I guess the technical issues fall into separate categories.

1. RDFa Lite. As you may already know, there is now an editor's draft for RDFa 1.1 Lite[1]. There has been some minor comments since we published that, but nothing substantial (only editorial). I would expect to publish this, formally as a First Public Working Draft, together with all the other draft publication when we are all in line. It would then follow its course as a Last Call, CR, etc.

2. Issues around @property vs. @rel. We separated this issue because the group believes this should _not_ be an RDFa Lite feature but, rather, a functionality on the RDFa 1.1 level overall. This ensures an upward compatibility, ie, that an HTML content using RDFa Lite would also produce the same triples if considered RDFa 'Full'; this level of compatibility is, imho, essential.

We had a long discussion on the exact shape of the @rel/@property issue, which has now reached a somewhat more stable state documented on the Wiki[2]. I know it is a fairly technical text but hopefully it is clear to you nevertheless. There are, actually, two open issues on somewhat corner cases, also documented on the wiki[3]. The WG still has to decide on those, and your input would be important.

B.t.w., the scheme is implementable. Both Gregg and I have a running implementation of [2] on our respective machines (Gregg's may be on line, I am not sure), meaning that the change on the processing rules[4] seem to be correct...

3. There are some minor issues on HTML5 specific elements and attributes that are not mentioned in RDFa Lite or on [2]; these are really non-controversial, we just did not really formally decide on them. These are to include the @data attribute as a possible target alongside @href and @src; to accept the @value attribute for the @data element (as a literal); and, if <time> is indeed re-introduced into HTML5, then add an automatic xsd:date to the corresponding attribute there. I wish these were the only issues to handle for RDFa 1.1:-)

All: we would really need your feedbacks here to be able to conclude all this soonish...



As a fully and absolutely and completely non-serious comparison, I looked at my foaf file with respect of RDFa 1.0 and RDFa 1.1. See about that in[5] if you are interested

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-lite/Overview-src.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof#Issues_to_Discuss
[4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/PropertyAndTypeof#Processing
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Nov/0024.html

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, 9 November 2011 09:11:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:53 UTC