One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails sent in
over the past few months was the following:
USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML has no semantics for, and
which nobody has annotated before, and may never again, for private use or
use in a small self-cont
Toby Inkster on Wed May 13 02:19:17 PDT 2009:
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Hear hear. Lets call it "Cascading RDF Sheets".
http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec
http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/reactions
I have actually implemented it. It works.
Oh! Thanks for sharing.
RDFa is bet
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails sent in
> over the past few months was the following:
>
> USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML has no semantics for, and
> which nobody has annotated before, and ma
Quoting Philip Taylor :
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails sent in
over the past few months was the following:
USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML has no semantics for, and
which nobody has annota
On Sun, 10 May 2009 12:32:34 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
Page 3:
My Cats
Schrödinger
Orange male.
Erwin
Siamese color-point.
Given the microdata solution and this example, there is now a reason other than styling to
introd
Ian Hickson:
> USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML has no semantics for, and
> which nobody has annotated before, and may never again, for private use or
> use in a small self-contained community.
> (..)
> SCENARIOS:
Between the scenarios should be considered also this case:
* a
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Giovanni Gentili
wrote:
> * a user (or groups of users) wants to annotate
> items present on a generic web page with
> additional properties in a certain vocabulary.
> for example Joe wants to gather in a blog
> a series of personal annotation to movies
> (or other
A cursory glance on the new section 5 raises two questions on
indirection:
(Note the s in the last example -- since sometimes the
information
isn't visible, rather than requiring that people put it in and hide it
with display:none, which has a rather poor accessibility story, I
figured
we
I don't really like to be harsh, but I have some criticism to this,
and it's going to be quite hard. However, my goal by pointing out what
I consider so big mistakes is to help HTML5 becoming as good as it
could be.
First issue: it solves a (major) subset of what RDFa would solve.
However, it has
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> [...]
> (at least for now: many RDFa-aware agents vs. zero HTML5's
> microdata -aware agents)
HTML5 microdata parsers seem pretty trivial to write -
http://philip.html5.org/demos/microdata/demo.html is only about two
hundred lines to read
Philip Taylor wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
[...]
(at least for now: many RDFa-aware agents vs. zero HTML5's
microdata -aware agents)
HTML5 microdata parsers seem pretty trivial to write -
http://philip.html5.org/demos/microdata/demo.html is only about
Just a quick comment on:
it uses prefixes, which most authors simply do not understand, and
which many implementors end up getting wrong (e.g. SearchMonkey
hard-coded certain prefixes in its first implementation, Google's
handling of RDF blocks for license declarations is all done with
A
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> Third issue: also a flaw inherited from RDFa, it can be summarized as
> completelly ignoring the requirement I submitted to this list on April
> 28th, in reply to Ian asking us to review the use cases [1]. I'll try
> to illustrate it with a
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Peter Mika wrote:
>
> Just a quick comment on:
>
> it uses prefixes, which most authors simply do not understand, and
> which many implementors end up getting wrong (e.g. SearchMonkey
> hard-coded certain prefixes in its first implementation, Google's
> handling of RDF
Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 12 May 2009, Peter Mika wrote:
Just a quick comment on:
it uses prefixes, which most authors simply do not understand, and
which many implementors end up getting wrong (e.g. SearchMonkey
hard-coded certain prefixes in its first implementation, Google's
hand
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Shelley Powers
wrote:
>
> I
> would say if your fellow Google developers could understand how this all
> works, there is hope for others.
"if"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009May/0064.html
> Shelley
- Sam Ruby
Sam Ruby wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Shelley Powers
wrote:
I
would say if your fellow Google developers could understand how this all
works, there is hope for others.
"if"
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2009May/0064.html
\
- Sam Ruby
A
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Shelley Powers
> wrote:
>>
>> I
>> would say if your fellow Google developers could understand how this all
>> works, there is hope for others.
>
> "if"
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml
Tab Atkins Jr. on Tue, 12 May 2009 12:30:27 -0500:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:55 AM, Eduard Pascual:
> [...] It would be preferable to be able
> to state something like "each (row) in the describes an
> iguana: the s are each iguana's picture, the contents of the
> 's are the names, and the
Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Hear hear. Lets call it "Cascading RDF Sheets".
http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec
http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/reactions
I have actually implemented it. It works. RDFa is better though.
-Toby
>> In terms of prefixes, I find that 'com.foaf-project.name' is a lot more
>> difficult to write than 'foaf:name'. Reverse domain names are
>> non-intuitive for non-programmer types (or non-Java programmers).
>
> If we can come up with a way of using the string "foaf:name" without
> having to decla
Let me start with some apologies:
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
> [...]
> Seeing that solutions are already being discussed
> here, I'm trying to put the ideas into a human-readable document that
> I plan to submit to this list either late today or early tomorrow for
> y
jgra...@opera.com wrote:
Quoting Philip Taylor :
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails sent in
over the past few months was the following:
USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML has no semantics for, and
James Graham wrote:
jgra...@opera.com wrote:
Quoting Philip Taylor :
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails
sent in
over the past few months was the following:
USE CASE: Annotate structured data that HTML ha
On 14/5/09 14:18, Shelley Powers wrote:
James Graham wrote:
jgra...@opera.com wrote:
Quoting Philip Taylor :
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails
sent in
over the past few months was the following:
USE CASE:
Dan Brickley wrote:
On 14/5/09 14:18, Shelley Powers wrote:
James Graham wrote:
jgra...@opera.com wrote:
Quoting Philip Taylor :
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
One of the more elaborate use cases I collected from the e-mails
sent in
over the past few months was the f
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> Having HTML5-microdata -to- RDF parsers is pretty critical to having test
> cases that help us all understand where RDFa-Classic and HTML5 diverge. I'm
> very happy to see this work being done and that there are multiple
> implementations.
>
>
On May 14, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So much concern about generating RDF, makes one wonder why we didn't
just implement RDFa...
If it's possible to produce RDF triples from microdata, and if RDF
triples of interest can be expressed with microdata, why does it
matter if the
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So much concern about generating RDF, makes one wonder why we didn't
just implement RDFa...
If it's possible to produce RDF triples from microdata, and if RDF
triples of interest can be expressed with microdata, why
On May 14, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So much concern about generating RDF, makes one wonder why we
didn't just implement RDFa...
If it's possible to produce RDF triples from microdata, and if RDF
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 5:18 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So much concern about generating RDF, makes one wonder why we
didn't just implement RDFa...
If it's possible to produce RDF triples from
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Philip Taylor wrote:
> [...]
> If we restrict literals to strings [...]
But *why* restrict literals to strings?? Being unable to state that
"2009-05-14" is a date makes that value completely useless: it would
only be useful on contexts where a date is expected (bas
In short, this proposal looks very interesting to me. There are
several things that attract me to it:
* Looks very simple to author
This is absolutely critical to any web technology and IMHO where RDFa fails.
* Generic syntax which allows creations of generic parsers
This will allow us to crea
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> * Support for specifying a machine-readable value, such as for dates,
> colors, numbers, etc.
> * Support for tabular data.
>
> Especially the former is very interesting to me. I even wonder it
> would allow replacing the element with a stan
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Philip Taylor wrote:
> [...]
> _:X .
> [...]
>
>
>
>
> [...]
> So, I can't see any limits on expressivity other than that literals
> must be strings.
Hmm, I think I'm wrong here. 'id' has to be unique, which means this
pattern won't work if _:X is t
On May 14, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So, if I'm pushing for RDFa, it's not because I want to "win". It's
because I have things I want to do now, and I would like to make
sure have a reasonable chance of working a couple of years in the
future. And yeah, once SVG is in HTML5,
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> [...]
> From my cursory study, I think microdata could subsume many of the use cases
> of both microformats and RDFa.
Maybe. But microformats and RDFa can handle *all* of these cases.
Again, which are the benefits of creating something e
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
So, if I'm pushing for RDFa, it's not because I want to "win". It's
because I have things I want to do now, and I would like to make sure
have a reasonable chance of working a couple of years in the future.
And yeah,
On Thu, 14 May 2009 22:30:41 +0200, Shelley Powers
wrote:
>> I'm not 100% sure microdata can really achieve this, but I think making
>> the attempt is a positive step.
>>
> It can't, don't you see?
>
> Microdata will only work in HTML5/XHTML5.
Actually, as specified, it would work for any tex
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
> Toby Inkster on Wed May 13 02:19:17 PDT 2009:
>>
>> Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
>>
>> > Hear hear. Lets call it "Cascading RDF Sheets".
>>
>> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/spec
>>
>> http://buzzword.org.uk/2008/rdf-ease/reactions
On May 14, 2009, at 23:52, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Philip Taylor > wrote:
It doesn't matter one syntax or another. But if a syntax already
exists (RDFa), building a new syntax should be properly justified.
It was at the start of this thread:
http://lists.whatwg.o
Henri Sivonen wrote:
There's no indirection. A decade of Namespaces in XML shows that both
authors and implementors have trouble getting prefix-based indirection
right.
It's true that people get this wrong again and again. But it's also true
that lots of developers understand it once for all,
On May 18, 2009, at 12:18, Julian Reschke wrote:
Henri Sivonen wrote:
There's no indirection. A decade of Namespaces in XML shows that
both authors and implementors have trouble getting prefix-based
indirection right.
It's true that people get this wrong again and again. But it's also
tr
Henri Sivonen wrote:
The interesting question here is whether there's a better system.
1) Centralized allocation of short names.
Sounds like "urn:" to me. Registry is defined in RFC 3406.
2) Prefixing a short name by (an abbreviation of) the name of the
vocabulary, which makes the probabi
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On May 14, 2009, at 23:52, Eduard Pascual wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Philip Taylor
>> wrote:
>> It doesn't matter one syntax or another. But if a syntax already
>> exists (RDFa), building a new syntax should be properly ju
On May 18, 2009, at 6:05 AM, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Henri Sivonen
wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 23:52, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Philip Taylor >
wrote:
It doesn't matter one syntax or another. But if a syntax already
exists (RDFa),
On May 18, 2009, at 16:05, Eduard Pascual wrote:
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Henri Sivonen
wrote:
(If we were limited to reasoning about something that we don't have
experience with yet, I might believe that people can't be too inept
to use
prefix-based indirection. However, a decade
On Mon, 11 May 2009, Simon Pieters wrote:
> On Sun, 10 May 2009 12:32:34 +0200, Ian Hickson wrote:
>
> >Page 3:
> >My Cats
> >
> > Schrödinger
> >
> >
> >
> > Orange male.
> > Erwin
> >
> >
> >
> > Siamese color-point.
> >
> >
>> Some of the improvement suggestions that I have heard that sounds
>> interesting, though possibly for the next version of microdata.
>>
>> * Support for specifying a machine-readable value, such as for dates,
>> colors, numbers, etc.
>
> I expect we will add support for these based on demand, th
The problem of W3C DTD DDoS does not apply to CURIE because software
processing RDF does not need to retrieve the resources referenced on a
regular basis. Even in the case of DTD, the problem is that some software
does not cache, not that some software tries to access it.
IMHO,
Chris
Ian Hickson wrote:
> I agree entirely. I actually tried to find a workable solution to address
> this but unfortunately the only general solutions I could come up with
> that would allow this were selector-based, and in practice authors are
> still having trouble understanding how to use Selecto
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> >>
> >> Some of the improvement suggestions that I have heard that sounds
> >> interesting, though possibly for the next version of microdata.
> >>
> >> * Support for specifying a machine-readable value, such as for dates,
> >> colors, numbers, etc.
> >
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Frank Hellenkamp wrote:
> >
> > I agree entirely. I actually tried to find a workable solution to
> > address this but unfortunately the only general solutions I could come
> > up with that would allow this were selector-based, and in practice
> > authors are still having tro
53 matches
Mail list logo
