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

Re: RDFa Core, fragids, 3023bis, and FYN

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 08:19:24 -0400
Message-ID: <CACHXnaoUJ2J0FF+ZsBACRYzwcRLvnEyrjpwxiz2eQi1qdhq4EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Thanks, Henry. I've tried to find weaknesses in this analysis and
failed. The missing piece for me through this whole discussion was RDF
Concepts, which in its own bizarre way seems to forge the link between
RDFa and fragid semantics. I support your conclusion.

As a followon (totally unrelated to action-509) we ought to fold RDF
Concepts into our broader discussion of fragid semantics.


On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> writes:
>> ACTION-509
>> The question is what, if anything, would we like for the RDFa
>> Core 1.1 specification to say about fragment identifiers.  On Thursday
>> I volunteered to come up with more options, and here they are.
>> Why should it say anything at all?  Because documents utilising RDFa
>> Core will use fragment identifiers with the same semantics as in other
>> RDF serializations, and this should be documented somehow.  There are
>> two reasons to think this even though the spec doesn't call it out.
>> The first is examples like the following:
>>     <p about="#bbq" typeof="cal:Vevent">
>>       I'm holding
>>       <span property="cal:summary">
>>         one last summer barbecue
>>       </span>,
>>       on
>>       <span property="cal:dtstart" content="2015-09-16T16:00:00-05:00"
>>             datatype="xsd:dateTime">
>>         September 16th at 4pm
>>       </span>.
>>     </p>
>> The other reason is that users will simply proceed to assume this
>> semantics, and it will be supported by processors.  They won't ask
>> permission and won't need encouragement.
> I think there is a third reason, and that is that it is _already_
> stated explicitly in the RDFa Core 1.1 spec.  If I'm right, that
> argues that no action is necessary, except perhaps to make that
> statement more obvious with respect to its implications _vis a vis_
> fragment identifiers.
> Here's my reasoning (I'll focus on the 'about' attribute as used in
> the above example, but the argument goes through for all RDFa
> attributes whose value is speced to allow anything which ends up with
> an IRI in the resulting graph):
>  1) "A conforming RDFa Processor must make available to a consuming
>      application a single RDF graph containing all possible triples
>      generated by using the rules in the Processing Model section." [1]
>  2) "when converting RDFa to triples, any relative IRIs must be
>      resolved relative to the base IRI" [2]
>  3) "As processing progresses, any @about attributes will change the
>      current subject. The value of @about is an IRI or a CURIE. If it
>      is a relative IRI then it needs to be resolved against the
>      current base value." [3]
>  4) "we'll ... use [Turtle] throughout this document when we need to
>      talk about the RDF that could be generated from some RDFa." [4]
> All of this gives a complete normative justification for the treatment
> of the example above, in particular to the conclusion that a
> conformant RDFa processor must supply at least the following graph
> to a consuming application on processing the example in
> question (assuming with JAR that the example in question is found in a
> representation retrieved from http://example.org/summer)
>               http://example.org/summer#bbq
>                               /|\
>                ______________/ | \__________________________________
>               |                |                                    |
>               |                |______________________              |
>               |                                       |             |
> http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type        |             |
>               |                                       |             |
>               |        http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#summary   |
>               |               |                                     |
>               |               |     http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#dtstart
>               |               |________________                 |
>               |                                |                |
> http://www.w3.org/2002/12/cal/ical#Vevent       |                |
>                                                |                |
>                                   "one last summer barbecue"    |
>                                                                 |
>         "2015-09-16T16:00:00-05:00"^^http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime
> At this point it seems to me the RDFa Core spec. has done all that it
> needs to.  For the interpretation of that graph, and in particular for
> the interpretation of the IRIs which appear in it, it quite properly
> defers to the RDF spec:
>  "All of the triples that are defined by this specification are
>  contained in the output graph by an RDFa Processor. For more
>  information on graphs and other RDF concepts, see [RDF-CONCEPTS]."
>> I think the question can be put as follows:
>>   Is RDF-style fragid semantics for RDFa Core to be documented
>>   (a) only in the RDFa Core spec,
>>   (b) only in media type (or namespace?) registrations referencing RDFa
>>       Core,
>>   (c) neither, or
>>   (d) both?
> If I'm right, the answer is "(c) neither", on the grounds that RDFa
> introduces nothing new with respect to the use of fragment identifiers
> (that's already in RDF) or with respect to the _interpretation_ of
> fragment identifiers, since no RDFa attribute creates an anchor in the
> resource corresponding to its host document.
>> Note that "documented" could be via a chain of normative references,
>> e.g. by reference to RDF Concepts, which is what RFC 3870 does.
> The way in which RFC 3870 and RDF Concepts do, or do not, successfully
> define the interpretation of fragment identifiers in documents of type
> application/rdf+xml is a topic for another email. . .
> However for my argument wrt FYN all that's necessary is that we can
> get to RDF Concepts from any use of RDFa.  For RDFa + HTML I believe
> we all think the responsibility for this lies with the HTML5 spec.
> More generally, I think we can identify two classes of RDFa embedding
> in a host language/media-type-governed-representation:
>  1) *Witting* embedding, in which the specification for the host
>    language explicitly allows RDFa attributes with their RDFa
>    semantics and references the RDFa Core spec.;
>  2) *Unwitting* embedding, in which no such explicit license is to be
>    found in the host language spec.  I have recently argued (see [5])
>    that this _must_ only be allowed if the RDFa attributes are
>    namespace-qualified.
> In either case the FYN chain is complete.
> Supposing my argument is found to be convincing, what should the RDFa
> Core WG do wrt the Note [6] which reads
>  "In some of the examples below we have used IRIs with fragment
>   identifiers that are local to the document containing the RDFa
>   fragment identifiers shown (e.g., 'about="#me"'). This idiom, which
>   is also used in RDF/XML [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and other RDF
>   serializations, gives a simple way to 'mint' new IRIs for entities
>   described by RDFa and therefore contributes considerably to the
>   expressive power of RDFa. Unfortunately, this practice is not at
>   present covered by the media type registrations that govern the
>   meaning of fragment identifiers (see section 3.5 of the URI
>   specification [RFC3986], [RFC3023], and [RFC2854]). For more
>   information about fragment identifier semantics, see [WEBARCH]
>   section 3.2.1."
> ?
> I would suggest simply replacing the last two sentences (from
> "Unfortunately, this practice" until the end of the note) with
>   The precise meaning of IRIs which include fragment identifiers when
>   they appear in RDF graphs is given in Section 7 of [RDF-CONCEPTS].
>> . . .
>> Answer (c) shouldn't be dismissed out of hand; here's the case: (I
>> don't buy any of this, just trying to make sure it's heard)
>>   RFC 3986 only says the interpretation "depends on" the media type;
>>   that is too vague to be construable as a requirement for FYN.
>>   Fragid semantics could depend in some obscure way, it could depend
>>   on other things as well, and so on.
>>   RDF Concepts seems to imply that the FYN story for RDF is different
>>   from that of 3986, and that media types are not really involved
>>   after all.  That is, it says that for RDF, you get an
>>   application/rdf+xml representation (or you imagine doing so), then
>>   look at the triples to see what they say.
> These two points seem to me to be critiques of RDF Concepts, not of
> option (c) for addressing FYN.  It's not the RDFa Core wG's job to fix
> alleged bug(s) in RDF Concepts (which they have, on my account, gotten
> us to wrt FYN)  They are allowed to depend on it just as e.g. the
> RDF Syntax, Turtle and N3 specs do.
>>   Among existing media types the only one that connects fragids to
>>   RDF-style semantics is application/rdf+xml.  text/n3, text/turtle,
>>   and other RDF media type registrations say nothing.
>>   application/xhtml+xml handles RDFa via the XHTML namespace
>>   declaration, but the RDFa specification cited by the nsdoc says
>>   nothing about fragid semantics.  (There is a non-normative reference
>>   to a GRDDL transform, but the wording is too weak to make a good
>>   connection.)
> Per my argument above the media type argument is settled -- text/html
> is covered by HTML5's reference to RDFa (not currently there, but
> assuming that at least gets sorted) and other witting or unwitting
> uses are covered as described above.
> ht
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#processorconf
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_curieprocessing
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#using--about
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#turtle
> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Oct/0051.html
> [6] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_Syntax_overview
> --
>       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
>      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>                Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
>                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 24 October 2011 12:19:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:40 UTC