Re: @rel syntax in RDFa (relevant to ISSUE-60 discussion), was: Using XMLNS in link/@rel

Ben, the difference is that while GRDDL makes it possible to have a  
rel value mean something non-obvious (i.e., based upon information  
outside of @rel and @profile), RDFa requires it.

On 05/03/2009, at 10:32 AM, Ben Adida wrote:

> Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> Microformat-defined rel and class values have their usual semantics
>> regardless of whether one links a GRDDL transform converting them  
>> to RDF.
> How is mnot going to figure out what those semantics are to generate a
> proper link-type header? Will all microformats be added to the IETF
> link-type registry?
> I've read over this thread a few times, and I still haven't seen any
> technical argument against the way RDFa handles @rel that is  
> consistent
> with specs prior to RDFa. We have an example with GRDDL (and also with
> eRDF, though it's not a w3c spec) that @profile may define an  
> *indirect*
> way, using other elements and attributes, to interpret @rel. RDFa is  
> no
> different.
> Julian argues that GRDDL is not about interpreting @rel, it's just  
> about
> extracting RDF/XML. I don't see the difference, but if one wants to  
> draw
> a line, then simply put RDFa on the GRDDL side and assume that it's
> "just a way to extract RDF/XML." I think you'd be missing out on how
> much you can get out of RDFa, but certainly if GRDDL gets a pass on
> this, then RDFa should, too.
> In fact, remember that RDFa also specifies @about so you can, for
> example, have multiple images each with its own unique copyright
> license. For link-type to do the right thing, it actually needs to  
> fully
> parse the RDFa. I'd be excited to have the link-type spec do that,  
> but I
> doubt that's within its scope. So maybe ignoring RDFa  is the right
> approach for link-type.
> -Ben

Mark Nottingham

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 23:44:08 UTC