W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xhtml2@w3.org > June 2008

Re: Reviewing Last Call RDFa

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:25:00 -0400
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org, XHTML WG <public-xhtml2@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7C819C85-34EB-4625-85C0-50D30D018172@w3.org>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>

On 2008-06 -19, at 14:21, Ralph R. Swick wrote:

> At 08:54 AM 6/18/2008 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
> ...
>> You could say, (2) "All servers MUST put the namespace GRDDL, and
>> clients MAY use namespace GRDDL, or may use inherent knowledge of the
>> spec." That would work in all cases.
> ...
>> So I suspect you want go with (2).  To define RDFa conformance.
>> Obviously, people might want to make documents in the short term  
>> which
>> work equally well by conforming to the GRDDL spec (document profile
>> method) and by RDFa but that is a distraction.
> In today's telecon, the group resolved the following editorial change
> in section 4.1 Document Conformance [1]:
>  RESOLUTION: move the two items "SHOULD be a DOCTYPE" and
>  "SHOULD be a @profile" from Section 4.1 to a new Informational
>  Appendix "Deployment Advice"
>    -- http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html#item01
>  [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rdfa-syntax-20080221/#docconf
> The intent of this change is to reinforce that the use of the GRDDL
> namespace transform is sufficient to declare that the triples
> specified in this document are part of the document semantics.
> This was the intent of the language in the Last Call Working Draft.

Good.  I hope the test suite has lots of example with no document  

> ...
>> This concern is, how do I know that an RDFa
>> reader will not extract triples from a pre-RDFa HTML document
>> that  were not intended by the author?
> The Working Group's position is that the triples extracted by the
> current processing model from existing XHTML1 documents are
> the RDF expression of semantics that have been in the HTML
> specification.  (I understand that you recalled a demonstration
> over a year ago of a prototype RDFa processor that extracted
> more triples than are specified by this RDFa processing model.
> Those triples were not part of an RDFa Working Draft and are
> not part of this RDFa Last Call specification and therefore not
> part of the document semantics as defined by RDFa.)

ok, Thanks for the clarification.

> ...
>>> We only mean this to enable RDFa processors to also process
>>> microformats, if they so choose.
>> Ah I see.  "Default graph" -- the meaning of the document.  if  
>> someone
>> makes some RDFb spec, can it not add more triples still?
>>> We felt that not leaving this door open might lead some folks to
>>> interpret RDFa as ruling out an RDF interpretation for microformats,
>>> which is not our intention.
>> good
>>> We could not find a cleaner way to phrase it without making the spec
>>> much more complicated.
>> well, just writing that explanation helped me -- maybe it could go in
>> the spec informationally.
> ...
>> ...  i think the
>> important thing is that the RDFa-derived graph is seen as being
>> asserted by the document, but other things can also be. I think we
>> agree on that.  I don't think the text in the spec conveyed it.
> The group additionally resolved the following editorial change
> in section 4.3. RDFa Processor Conformance [2].
>  "RESOLUTION: Replace sentence "This is called the [default graph]"
>  with "This specification uses the term <tref>default graph</tref> to
>  mean all of the triples asserted by a document according to the
>  <a href="#s_model">Processing Model</a> section."
>  -- http://www.w3.org/2008/06/19-rdfa-minutes.html#item02
>  [2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-rdfa-syntax-20080221/ 
> #processorconf>

Ok.  I think those changes resolve the issues I had with the Last Call  

> -Ralph
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2008 19:25:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:40:02 UTC