Re: [RDFa] The CLASS attribute

I want to reraise my position: leave class alone, and use something new  
for what we want. I still have the feeling that @role can do the job.

Steven

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 21:56:52 +0100, Hausenblas, Michael  
<michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at> wrote:

>
> Ben,
> I do support your proposal as this is an important issue - sometimes
> also called triple bloat - not _only_  mentioned by TimBL ;)
> Indeed this was one of the things I had in mind when contemplating
> about levels [1]. Not only the subset of RDF we aim to support with
> RDFa may go into a level, but also the way we interpret the attributes.
> Say, we have two levels: strict (interpreting only attributes _with_ NS)
> and verbose (taking _all_ attributes as input to generate an RDF graph.
> Note: This could go into a profile definition as well IMHO -
>       Karl, any comments?
> Cheers,
>        Michael
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/SWD/RDFa/#sec4
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
>  Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
>  JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
>  Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org on behalf of Ben Adida
> Sent: Tue 2007-02-13 21:06
> To: RDFa; SWD WG
> Subject: [RDFa] The CLASS attribute
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> (also following up from our telecon)
>
> So we have agreed to use the CLASS attribute as syntactic sugar for
> rdf:type. That works really nicely in all of our examples, but it
> creates a lot of "local triples" in your average HTML. I know we've
> argued many times that it doesn't matter in terms of machine processing,
> but the point is that this is a really bad unexpected outcome for many
> users, including TimBL.
>
> So I have a proposal: we keep using CLASS, but RDFa provides triples
> only for namespaced CLASSes. I know we've talked about just "turning off
> local triples" in the parser as a way to get over the bad first
> impression that people have, but I think we need to go further than
> that: TimBL pointed to an example that can really get confusing:
>
> <div class="notice" about="#me">
> blah blah blah
> </div>
>
> gives:
>
> <#me> rdf:type notice
>
> No matter how you look at it, that's semantically wrong.
>
> We need to make sure that only explicit classes become types, and the
> easiest way to do that is to require scoped classes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Ben
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2007 11:32:57 UTC