Re: Updated Editor's Draft

Shane, you are absolutely right, I should have looked at this version earlier and should have raised a flag. My apologies.

That being said: Gregg is, imho, right. We _do_ have a default profile, oops, sorry, default context for XML or, if you like, for RDFa Core. The content is currently at:

http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1

it contains all the default prefixes that we worked on, plus one single term for definedby (that latter was a separate resolution at some point, ie, that it should be available as an extra term). There was no WG resolution to remove that (although I was not really around when profiles were removed); the agreement, I believe, was to remove the generic profile mechanism, but keep the defaults.

B.t.w. I just proposed[1] that the URI for this should be changed to:

http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1

and, by the time you wake up, it might already be available.

What this means that, I believe, the core text should be changed in that section to what Gregg said in his mail[2], except for the reference to the default context file. I do not want to make this change in the core spec, because you should agree with this first:-)

Ivan

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/2D8296A4-8629-47B1-B24A-A0715F2E23C4@w3.org
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/EF130D7B-34EB-4DC8-99D5-B89A40A459BB@greggkellogg.net

On Oct 20, 2011, at 22:29 , Shane McCarron wrote:

> The last date space editor's draft [5] says this:
> 
>> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so in the following context:
>> 
>> 	• There is no default collection of terms.
>> 	• There are no default IRI mappings. @@@@ is this correct? If not, we should define the mappings in an appendix or an RDFa Profile document. -spm @@@@
>> 	• There is no default vocabulary IRI.
>> 	• The base can be set using the @xml:base attribute as defined in [XML10-4e].
>> 	• The current language can be set using @xml:lang attribute.
> 
> I asked the question and apparently didn't get an answer, so I made one up!
> 
> On 10/20/2011 3:25 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Wow - I completely do not remember that.  I removed that a very long time ago - probably when profiles went away.  I personally don't think there should be an initial context for XML+RDFa, but mostly that's because I feel that if you are using RDFa that way you are going to be explicit about everything.
>> 
>> On 10/20/2011 3:14 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> On Oct 20, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>> 
>>>> XML+RDFa never had an initial context in any draft.  If there was a decision about including one, I missed it.
>>> 
>>> From [4]:
>>> 
>>> [[[
>>> When an RDFa Processor processes an XML+RDFa document, it does so in the following context:
>>> 
>>>  1. The default vocabulary URI is undefined.
>>>  2. The default collection of terms is defined via an RDFa Profile document at http://www.w3.org/profile/rdfa-1.1.
>>>  3. The base can be set using the @xml:base attribute as defined in [XML10-4e].
>>>  4. The current language can be set using @xml:lang attribute.
>>> ]]]
>>> 
>>>> 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:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 4.3 XML+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 orapplication/xml. Such documents must meet all of the following criteria:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 	• The document must be well-formed as defined in [XML10-4e].
>>>>>>> 	• 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 following initial context:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 	• There is no default collection of terms.
>>>>>>> 	• There are no default IRI mappings.
>>>>>>> 	• There is no default vocabulary IRI.
>>>>>>> 	• The base can be set using the @xml:base attribute as defined in [XML10-4e].
>>>>>>> 	• The current language can be set using @xml:lang attribute
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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
>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#xmlrdfaconformance
> 
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2011/ED-rdfa-core-20110814/#xmlrdfaconformance
> -- 
> Shane McCarron
> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
> +1 763 786 8160 x120
> 


----
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