Re: [RDFa] The CLASS attribute

+1

Steven Pemberton wrote:
> 
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf