Re: ACTION-97: comments on link relations

On Thu, October 13, 2011 10:28 am, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:26:36 +0100
> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> minus those whose specification does not fit the 'semantic' aspect of
>> RDFa (e.g., nofollow)
>
> Why isn't nofollow semantic? OK, it's badly named, but properties in
> RDF are URIs, and URIs are opaque.

Maybe nofollow is a wrong example. But are we sure that all of the HTML5 rel values are semantically kosher for us? If
yes, that is fine, but that is something that we have to decide.

(I must admit that I always found the fact that we automatically use stylesheet, for example, irritating. An RDFa web
page usually speak about a more general concept and not the HTML source itself, and stylesheet is on the source. Most
of the case this means that that triple is noise for me...)

>
> Let's imagine an agent which takes the RDFa of a page, and also adds
> some extra triples along the lines of:
>
> 	<page> sioc:links_to <dest> .
>
> For every <a href> and <link href> link on the page.
>
> It's reasonable to run the following SPARQL on that data:
>
> 	CONSTRUCT {
> 		?author ex:endorses ?page .
> 	}
> 	WHERE {
> 		?source dc:creator ?author .
> 		?source sioc:links_to ?page .
> 		FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?source xhv:nofollow ?page . }
> 	}
>
> Personally for HTML5+RDFa I just accept the union of HTML5's rel
> values, and RDFa's rel values.

Do you mean the XHTML rel values? I do not really really mind, but the fact is that, for good or bad reasons, HTML5
threw out most of the XHTML defined @rel values. I wonder whether it is a good policy for us to keep them
nevertheless.

Ivan



>
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>
>


-- 
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 13 October 2011 10:42:56 UTC