W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2010

Re: HTML+RDFa Heartbeat Draft publishing request

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:36:47 +0100
Message-ID: <eb19f3361001140136p4155c10crdcdf93a41fd65761@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>>> Neither RDFa, nor Microdata are extension mechanisms that allow
>>>> adding "independently developed vocabularies" to HTML.
>>> Could you describe the criteria by which one can recognise a mechanism
>>> for allowing the addition of independently developed vocabularies? I'm
>>> baffled as to what the point of RDFa and Microdata would be if not
>>> exactly that.
>> It would be helpful to demonstrate *how* Ruby or ITS can be added using
>> RDFa or Microdata. (examples would be sufficient)
> Your question doesn't make sense.  Neither Ruby nor ITS are vocabularies
> designed for RDFa or Microdata, and I'm sure you are well aware of that.
>  No-one has claimed that those specific vocabularies could be added using
> RDFa or Microdata, so you seem to be making a strawman argument. You also
> seem to be avoiding the question that Hixie actually asked.
> Do you consider the following to be "independently developed vocabularies",
> as referred to by the charter or not?  If not, why not? What is the criteria
> you are using to determining what is or is not an independent vocabulary?
> * Microdata Vocabularies for vCard, vEvent and Licensing, as described
>  in the Microdata draft, and other Microformats that may be mapped to
>  Microdata by the Microformats community
>  http://dev.w3.org/html5/md/#mdvocabs
> * The Creative Commons vocabulary for RDFa?
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa
> * Dublin Core, FOAF, etc.
> Each of those could be included using either RDFa or Microdata, as they have
> been designed for doing so.
aside -

FOAF was designed to work with RDF. It could be squeezed into
Microdata but as I understand it, would look butt-ugly since property
names would be things like http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/openid

I'm not anti-Microdata btw. The item* terminology is quite nice, for
example. But I wouldn't want to recommend people encode FOAF in it
without deciding on a namespace URI abbreviation mechanism...

Received on Thursday, 14 January 2010 09:37:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:33:45 UTC