W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2011

Re: Dropping RDF mapping from microdata spec

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:29:01 +0100
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AAC10FFA-30DD-4D6F-AF12-4F0B29F2DC13@deri.org>
To: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>

> I know that Michael Hausenblas and others have been working on doing  
> a mapping from schema.org to RDF; perhaps that might work as the  
> basis for a Community Group that could look at defining a mapping.

The Schema.org sponsors have taken up this work and directly provide  
an OWL version now [1]. We collect and maintain mappings from widely  
deployed RDF vocabularies to Schema.org via Schema.RDFS.org [2] ...  
which reminds me that I have an action to properly update our site  
with the recent changes ;)


[1] https://groups.google.com/d/topic/schemaorg-discussion/0JVQO6-ajBk/discussion
[2] https://github.com/mhausenblas/schema-org-rdf/tree/master/mappings
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730

On 27 Jul 2011, at 17:12, Jeni Tennison wrote:

> On 27 Jul 2011, at 09:17, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> Jeni Tennison writes:
>>> Ian is proposing dropping the RDF mapping from the microdata spec  
>>> (see first comment at):
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/105458233028934590147/posts/3MdCwFNKPfX
>>> Since the presence of that part of the microdata spec is a primary
>>> cause of conflict between it and RDFa, and the RDF that is produced
>>> by it doesn't match people's expectations (about which Tim filed a
>>> bug), I assume that we would support such a change?
>> I don't think _dropping_ it is what we want -- we want it _fixed_,
>> don't we?
> On 27 Jul 2011, at 14:06, Jonathan Rees wrote:
>> I think there are many ways to look at this, but one theory I've
>> entertained is that microdata bears the same relation to RDF that,
>> say, XML or CSV does - it's just another information source that has
>> to be reverse engineered and then re-expressed if it wants to be used
>> by in an RDF context. Therefore, dictating a single standard way to  
>> do
>> the re-expression may be as premature and/or inappropriate as it  
>> would
>> be for CSV or XML. If some RDF is to capture the meaning of some
>> microdata, then someone has to come up with a theory that accounts  
>> for
>> what the particular microdata means, and such a theory might be
>> subtle, nontrivial, or context-dependent - at the very least it
>> requires some thought.  And even if a standard correspondence were
>> desired by the (or an) RDF-using community, that method would  
>> probably
>> better be specified by those affected, rather than by a working group
>> that is obviously not sympathetic to RDF.
> [snip]
>> So my impulse is to agree with Ian and with you. But I could also
>> agree with Henry: If you don't prescribe a re-expression of microdata
>> as RDF now, then maybe any hope of doing so later will be doomed.
> I suppose that it might be a problem that without a generic mapping  
> defined, different processors end up with different methods of  
> mapping microdata to RDF. But I also agree with Jonathan that the  
> definition of the mapping would be best done by people who care  
> about producing RDF that works well in other RDF serialisations and  
> with the rest of the RDF toolchain.
> I know that Michael Hausenblas and others have been working on doing  
> a mapping from schema.org to RDF; perhaps that might work as the  
> basis for a Community Group that could look at defining a mapping.
>> (I'm assuming throughout that microdata and RDFa remain separate
>> things, and this may change.)
>> I didn't think that the microdata to RDF translation is the 'primary
>> cause of conflict' in the microdata/RDFa debate; it's just one piece
>> of it. Even without any translation at all, we would still have the
>> questions of whether there is duplicate functionality, whether that
>> matters, and whether anything ought to be done about it.
> Sure. I meant *direct* conflict, as in the RDF being generated by a  
> microdata processor based on the mapping in the microdata spec being  
> inconsistent from the RDF generated by a RDFa processor working over  
> the same page. There's still the "should there really be two  
> Recommendations addressing the same use cases in different ways?"  
> question.
> Jeni
> -- 
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 16:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:39 UTC