- From: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 14:17:45 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGR+nnF1GvM7grDm_MKp0rqpTTRSHesV87SvBJX1kx92-hc1uw@mail.gmail.com>
Ivan, On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:05 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > My apologies. I just saw that the WG discussed it yesterday. I should have > read the minutes before answering this... > No need to apologize. Thanks Ivan for adding to the conversation, you brought additional arguments which were not mentioned during the call. I agree with you and the rest of the group that this proposal is probably not a good idea, so I'll drop it now :) Steph. > > Ivan > > On Oct 14, 2011, at 10:00 , Ivan Herman wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 2011, at 17:58 , Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > > > >> Hi Ivan, > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Well... I must admit that I do not like that. It is a very personal > thing, but the aspect I see as a problem in > >> microdata is the fact that the usage of itemtype conflates two very > different concepts (at least for me), namely the > >> choice of a vocabulary and the typing of a concept, in one place. I am > pretty uneasy going down that road in RDFa > >> solely for the purpose of a better translation... > >> > >> yes, this proposal comes from the difference in modeling between the 2 > syntaxes. I believe that namespaces and types are two different concepts for > RDF folks, but I'm not sure the web developer community really care about > making that distinction, hence the design decision in microdata. > > > > This is a hypothetical reason. I am not sure our goal is to mimic all > aspects of microdata without further proofs. > > > >> I'm not advocating to remove this distinction from RDFa, but simply to > let the processor deal with it. > > > > But having them both does muddle the waters, at least in my view. There > are a number of corner cases (some of them are actually discussed in > conjunction with the microdata->RDF mapping, too) which we may have to deal > with: > > > > - If there are several items in @typeof, which one determines the > vocabulary? The first one? Doesn't that create issues for authors as a > possible source of errors (in my view it does) > > - @typeof values may not be full URI-s (in contrast to microdata). Ie, a > @vocab expansion is also valid for @typeof; what are exactly the rules > there? > > - What happens if there is a @typeof but there is also a valid @vocab > statement somewhere 'up' in the tree? > > - What are the exact rules of deducing a vocab URI from a type value? > > > > All these issues can be answered one-by-one, of course, and none of these > demand rocket science. But they do make things way more complicated. > > > > As you said in your earlier response to Toby, @typeof is already > overloaded insofar as it also creates a new subject in some cases. That is > true and, to be honest, this is one of the aspects of RDF1.0 that I really > do not like at all. I would prefer to remove any overloaded features from > @typeof (although, alas!, that ship has already sailed) rather than adding > to it. > > > > To make it clear: if the majority of the WG decides for this feature, I > will not lie down the road. But you still have to roll over me:-) > > > > As I said before: sorry, Stéphane, this time we disagree...:-) > > > > Ivan > > > > > >> > >> Steph. > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry:-) > >> > >> Ivan > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, October 12, 2011 2:56 pm, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > >>> Converting microdata to RDFa could be made easier by bypassing the > vocab > >>> attribute. Microdata incorporates the concept of vocabulary in the data > item > >>> type via @itemtype. Coming from a microdata perspective, the concept of > >>> vocabulary URI is an extra element (different from the item type) which > >>> could be avoided by the following proposal. Since there is a mechanism > being > >>> designed to infer a vocabulary namespace from the microdata @itemtype, > RDFa > >>> could use a similar mechanism, and use the first token of @typeof to > >>> construct the namespace that we currently put in @vocab. > >>> > >>> Consider the following microdata snippet: > >>> > >>> <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Person> > >>> My name is <span itemprop="name">John Doe</span>. > >>> </div> > >>> > >>> Currently to convert to RDFa, you need to split @itemtype into two > >>> attributes: @vocab and @typeof. What I'm suggesting is a direct mapping > from > >>> @itemtype to @typeof without the need of @vocab, where @typeof would > include > >>> the full URI: > >>> > >>> <div typeof="http://schema.org/Person> > >>> My name is <span property="name">John Doe</span>. > >>> </div> > >>> > >>> This would ease the RDFa to microdata and vice versa from a human > >>> standpoint. > >>> > >>> Note that I'm not suggesting to drop @vocab, but simply to make it > optional, > >>> which would make the common microdata snippets a no brainer to convert > to > >>> RDFa by a simple attributes string replace. In the processing model > >>> sequence, step 3 would have to include an extra step for the case where > >>> @vocab is missing, and use the same mechanism as Gregg is defining for > >>> microdata to RDF conversion. Here is a suggestion: > >>> > >>> [[[ > >>> 3. Next the current element is examined for any change to the default > >>> vocabulary via @vocab. If @vocab is present and contains a value, its > value > >>> updates the local default vocabulary. If the value is empty, then the > local > >>> default vocabulary must be reset to the Host Language defined default. > If > >>> @vocab is not present but the first token of @typeof is an absolute > >>> URI, construct the local default vocabulary by removing everything > following > >>> the last SOLIDUS U+002F ("/") or NUMBER SIGN U+0023 ("#") in the first > token > >>> of @typeof. > >>> ]]] > >>> > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Steph. > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > >> URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf > >> > > > > > > ---- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- > 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 Friday, 14 October 2011 14:18:24 UTC