- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 23:44:59 +0100
- To: www-tag@w3.org
- CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Henry S. Thompson wrote: > ISSUE-35 -- Microdata/RDFa relationship Nice to see this being focussed on. I have some concerns that the major background difference between the approaches, which resulted in two differing specifications, has not been given much focus. From Jeni's document: * RDFa allows entities to be assigned more than one type; microdata supports a maximum of one type I firmly believe this is the key difference in approaches, microdata is primarily focused on using a classical "class blueprint" style of schema, where each class/type is set in stone, and has a fixed enumerable set of properties. Whereas RDF(a) mixes and matches from multiple vocabularies. Whilst this only results in minor difference in the surface syntax, the mental model, processing model, and how the data is generated / consumed / interacted with and consumed is very different. My primary concern is that this may need to be addressed first of all, because if the different approaches are both needed, then two different surface syntaxes for the two styles may well be needed, and the possible TF may need to focus on clearly identifying the needs of both approaches to ensure that features from one don't creep in to the other making it unusable. If it isn't addressed, then the differences in background mental / schema models may be enough to make a merged single syntax useless/confusing for one or more parties. > TBL: The Task Force may fail -- but I don't want them to come back and > say "We succeeded -- no change is necessary" +1, Can't stress that enough. Best, Nathan
Received on Saturday, 18 June 2011 22:46:10 UTC