Re: Updated Editor's Draft

XML+RDFa never had an initial context in any draft.  If there was a 
decision about including one, I missed it.

On 10/20/2011 2:10 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> Shane:
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:51 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I have updated our source document and am preparing to push an 
>> Editor's Draft into date space.  However, in completing my action 
>> about namespaced attributes, I was forced to make a decision about 
>> the prose that was not explicitly discussed by the working group.  If 
>> you look at [1] you will see:
>>
>>>
>>>       4.3XML+RDFa Document Conformance
>>>
>>> This specification does not define a stand-alone document type. The 
>>> attributes herein are intended to be integrated into other host 
>>> languages (e.g., HTML+RDFa or XHTML+RDFa). However, this 
>>> specification*does*define processing rules for generic XML documents 
>>> - that is, those documents delivered as media 
>>> types|text/xml|or|application/xml|. Such documents must meet all of 
>>> the following criteria:
>>>
>>>  1. The document/must/be well-formed as defined in [XML10-4e
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#bib-XML10-4e>].
>>>  2. The document/must/use the attributes defined in this
>>>     specification through references to the XHTML namespace
>>>     (|http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml|).
>>>
>>> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so 
>>> via the followinginitial context 
>>> <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-initial-context>:
>>>
>>>  1. There is no default collection of terms.
>>>  2. There are no default IRI mappings.
>>>  3. There is no default vocabulary IRI.
>>>  4. Thebase
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-base>can
>>>     be set using the@xml:baseattribute as defined in [XML10-4e
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#bib-XML10-4e>].
>>>  5. Thecurrent language
>>>     <http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#T-current-language>can
>>>     be set using@xml:langattribute
>>>
>
> Previously as I recall, RDF Core 1.1 did have a default profile 
> applied to all host languages, including XML [2]. This was, in fact, 
> where all of the prefixes were defined; XHTML+RDFa defined mostly link 
> relation terms. We did decide to keep the default profile, now renamed 
> to "initial context". However, I don't see that we decided that 
> XML+RDFa would not have such an initial context. Did I miss something? 
> (Actually, there's not even an ISSUE recorded for removing @profile, 
> just a meeting note [3].
>
> Gregg
>
>> Note that this now says that in a generic document, RDFa attributes 
>> MUST be referenced in a qualified manner.  Since this is a generic 
>> XML document, we cannot assume that unqualified attributes (ones in 
>> 'no namespace') are actually relevant to RDFa.  A generic XML 
>> document can have ANY elements and attributes (consider private XML 
>> structures) and adding RDFa semantics to them has to be qualified so 
>> there is no possibility of a collision.  For example, my Real Estate 
>> Annotation Language (REAL) might have a property attribute 
>> (property="residential"), but clearly that is not the same as 
>> @xh:property.
>>
>> I trust this restriction is consistent with what everyone was 
>> thinking in the call.
>>
>>
>> [1] 
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#xmlrdfaconformance 
>>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-07-28#Removing___40_profile
>> -- 
>> Shane McCarron
>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>> +1 763 786 8160 x120
>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120