W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Official Response to ISSUE-108 from RDF Web Apps WG

From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:25:45 +0000
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <49821524-D40E-42F6-9B6A-1EB97BD2C1EA@jenitennison.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Thanks Manu,

This response is acceptable to me.

Jeni

On 28 Jan 2012, at 17:53, Manu Sporny wrote:

> Hi Jeni,
> 
> Thank you for your public feedback on the RDFa 1.1 documents. This is an
> official response from the RDF Web Apps WG to your issue before we enter
> the 3rd Last Call for the RDFa 1.1 work this coming Tuesday. The Last
> Call will last for 3 weeks, so there is still time for you to discuss
> your concerns if we have not fully addressed them.
> 
> Your issue was tracked here:
> 
> ISSUE-108: Refine/deprecate Link relations for the RDFa 1.1 Default Profile.
> https://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/108
> 
> Explanation of Issue
> --------------------
> 
> In your blog post, you pointed out that spurious triples of link
> relations could be created in RDFa in HTML5:
> 
> http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/165
> 
> You specifically said:
> 
> """
> It doesn’t seem semantically correct to automatically create
> relationships based on the built-in HTML rel values, unless you are
> deliberately trying to extract document semantics from the page. This is
> a problem for RDFa, which reuses the rel attribute to provide property
> values for the embedded data.
> 
> One thing that could be done would be for RDFa to consistently use the
> property attribute everywhere rather than the rel attribute. This would
> not only ease the overloading but also reduce the confusion for users,
> who currently have to work out which attribute to use based on whether
> the value is a resource or a literal.
> """
> 
> Working Group Decision
> ----------------------
> 
> The problem was a bit deeper and it became apparent that if RDFa Core
> 1.1 is to generate triples in HTML5, that it should do one of two
> things. Either RDFa processors should generate the correct triples,
> requiring processors to understand HTML5 in more detail and thus greatly
> increasing the complexity of an RDFa Processor, or RDFa processors
> should not generate triples for values like rel="next" in HTML5, but
> should ensure backwards-compatability in XHTML1 by continuing to
> generate those triples. The full discussion can be seen here:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-01#ISSUE__2d_108__3a__Refine__2f_deprecate_Link_relations
> 
> In the end, we felt that not generating triples for terms like "next"
> and "index" in HTML5 would be best.
> 
> RESOLVED: RDFa 1.1 will have 3 default profiles, RDFa Core 1.1 will
> contain the terms 'describedby', 'license', and 'role', HTML+RDFa will
> not have any terms, XHTML+RDFa will have all terms required for
> backwards compatability.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2011-12-01#resolution_4
> 
> Feedback
> --------
> 
> Since this is an official Working Group response to your issue, we would
> appreciate it if you responded to this e-mail and let us know if the
> decision made by the group is acceptable to you as soon as possible.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: PaySwarm vs. OpenTransact Shootout
> http://manu.sporny.org/2011/web-payments-comparison/
> 
> 

-- 
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 10:10:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:30 UTC