W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > spec-prod@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: ReSpec and RDFa support

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 16:27:02 -0700
Cc: spec-prod@w3.org
Message-Id: <887F4B34-C022-40E4-977C-DEA42381B664@greggkellogg.net>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>

> On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io <mailto:shane@spec-ops.io>> wrote:
>> I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms.  This is pretty straightforward.  Question: is there any value in continuing to support the OLD terms as well?  In other words, if conf.doRDFa is set to something (schema.org <http://schema.org/>) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms.  Otherwise support the current behavior (which is a hybrid of dublin core, bibo, and w3c terms).
> I think using schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms is probably most useful to people now. I seem to recall that DanBri had created equivalents for FOAF and DC terms, or that someone else had contributed them. Of course, there’s not a 1-1 correspondence.
> Schema.org <http://schema.org/> doesn’t have an equivalent for the bibo vocabulary, though; this is used for creating the TOC, IIRC.

I take it back, there are terms defined in http://bib.schema.org that will do nicely; they use the same schema: namespace, fortunately.


> Gregg
>> -- 
>> Shane McCarron
>> Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

Received on Monday, 29 February 2016 23:27:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:55:21 UTC