RDFa Lite vs RDFa full support (was: schema.org Roles design)

On Apr 3, 2014 2:00 AM, "Stéphane Corlosquet" <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 1:10 AM, Dan Scott <dan@coffeecode.net> wrote:

>> 1. My understanding was that the schema.org partners had said they
>> would parse RDFa Lite, giving the impression that RDFa full was _not_
>> going to be accepted. But this thread is using RDFa full attributes
>> such as @about, @rel, and @rev. We may want to keep these constraints
>> in mind given schema.org's original raison d'être.
>
>
> Note there is no such thing as "RDFa Lite parser" (there is no parser
spec for RDFa Lite), all parsers should support RDFa full. RDFa Lite is a
subset designed for authors to use the most popular parts of RDFa which are
sufficient in 95% of the use cases. Then there are the other 5% which are
needed for more advance use cases such as the ones highlighted by Dan
Brickley.

Fair enough, but when I read "We hope that our support for 'RDFa Lite',
alongside Microdata, will allow publishers to focus more on what they want
to say with their data" (
http://blog.schema.org/2011/11/using-rdfa-11-lite-with-schemaorg.html), I
interpret that as saying that _only_ RDFa Lite is supported by the
schema.org search engine partners... no matter what the RDFa Lite specs say
about the "shoulds" of compliant implementations.

Of course, the schema.org "Getting started" and FAQ still state that only
microdata is supported, so a lack of clarity on RDFa Lite vs RDFa full
shouldn't be too surprising I guess :/