Quick follow up. With regard to Mark's proposal at [1]:
PROPOSAL
So to bring everything together, the proposal is:
(a) RDFa should add support for URIs in attributes that currently only
support CURIEs;
(b) authors should be encouraged to use safe-CURIEs in those
attributes;
(c) but since ordinary CURIEs may still be used, we should differentiate
by saying that anything appearing before a colon, that is not a
mapped prefix, is a protocol.
I disagree with (b). I don't think there is any need for this. If the
processing rules are handling this, then in these contexts there is no
need to use a safe curie. On the other hand, the TAG will have a cow if
we permit URIs and CURIEs in the same place. That was their principle
objection to the CURIE spec. How do we overcome that hurdle?
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html
Shane McCarron wrote:
FWIW, I think I agree with Mark on this one. It is low hanging fruit.
Note that no matter what, changes like these are things that relate to
a future version of RDFa, not to the current version.
Mark Birbeck wrote:
Hi Manu,
I'm afraid I still disagree with the priorities here, for the reasons
explained at [1] and [2].
Whilst some kind of vocabulary extension is of course important, as
far as I know the only substantial criticism that has been levelled at
RDFa is its requirement to use CURIEs/prefix mappings, and so I think
we should really put some effort into addressing that.
Fixing this would be low-hanging fruit, for us.
It simply requires us to agree on how we allow full URIs in @rel,
@rev, @property, @typeof and @datatype.
(I had a full proposal at [3], which seemed to be supported on the
list. Toby had an issue with how my proposal related to existing eRDF
content, using the example of "dc:creator" -- but this might be
incorrect, because as far as I can see, eRDF uses dots not colons.)
I realise that Hixie would prefer to have no prefix mappings at all in
RDFa, but I think that horse has bolted.
But I do think that providing support for full URIs, so that authors
at least have the choice of whether to use prefixes or not, would go a
long way towards answering his criticism.
And it's not as if the feature isn't useful, either; when using small
'packets' of RDFa, such as on one or two elements, it's often more
convenient to provide the complete URI, and not bother at all with
prefix mappings.
Regards,
Mark
[1]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0045.html>
[2]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Oct/0050.html>
[3]
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009Jul/0062.html>
--
Mark Birbeck, webBackplane
mark.birb...@webbackplane.com
http://webBackplane.com/mark-birbeck
webBackplane is a trading name of Backplane Ltd. (company number
05972288, registered office: 2nd Floor, 69/85 Tabernacle Street,
London, EC2A 4RR)
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Manu Sporny <mspo...@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
Hi all,
We have a telecon in 1.5 hours, let's try to get a game plan together on
implementing an experimental @vocab extension for extending the list of
reserved words.
==========
Thursday, November 5th 2009
1500 UTC, W3C Zakim bridge
tel:+1.617.761.6200 conference code RDFA
irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#rdfa
Duration: 60 minutes
Scribe: Zakim, pick a victim
==========
Agenda:
1) Action Items
http://www.w3.org/2009/11/05-rdfa-minutes.html#ActionSummary
2) RDFa WG charter updates (short - 10 minutes)
3) @vocab discussion
-- manu
--
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Establishing an Open Digital Media Commerce Standard
http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2009/09/28/a-digital-content-commerce-standard/
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: sh...@aptest.com
--
Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota Inet: sh...@aptest.com
