ons 2007-08-15 klockan 17:16 +0100 skrev Pete Johnston:
> OK, I'm a bit unsure of the procedures, but I guess if some sort of
> collective representation is to be made, we could develop a form of
> words here, and then Mikael & Tom as chairs could submit it on behalf of
> the DC Architecture Forum? (Or if more, ahem, clout was desirable, ask
> the Directorate to to do so?)
We'd certainly be prepared to do that as chairs.
>
> Yes, I understand that a transform can just as easily do the
> QName-like-name-to-URI-via-XML-Namespace mapping as it can do the
> dotted-name-to-URI-via-schema.XX mapping, and either/both could be used
> as the basis of a GRDDL profile transformation.
>
> I think my main concern was the profile/"trigger" question for RDFa: how
> to signal to an RDFa processor that in document A, my rel attribute
> values were QName-like-names constructed with the intent that they were
> to be mapped to URIs via concatenation with XML Namespace names, but in
> document B, they are plain strings and there is no intent that they
> should be mapped to URIs via concatenation with the default XML
> Namespace.
>
> > > But at some point in the future once RDFa is done, it may be worth
> > > producing a separate note on encoding DC metadata using RDFa.
> > >
> >
> > Another possibility is to propose a syntax that is upright
> > compatible with RDFa; this can be easily used and adapted
> > with GRDDL...
>
> OK, I think revising the syntactic conventions is an option we could
> consider.
>
> To make the DCMI convention compatible with RDFa, I think there are
> three aspects where change would be required:
>
> (i) the use of a colon (":") rather than the period (".") as the
> separator in what I called in the draft "DC-HTML Prefixed Names";
>
> (ii) the use of XML Namespace declarations, rather than the
> link[@rel='schema.XX'] convention, as the basis for mapping the (now
> colon-separated) "DC-HTML Prefixed Names" to URIs
>
> (iii) the use of the meta/@property attribute rather than meta/@name for
> the predicate
My gut feeling is that these are a bit too much at the moment. I'd
prioritize updating the current DC-in-HTML spec to be DCAM-compatible.
It seems to me that this also makes most existing DC-in-HTML metadata
more or less compatible?
Later on, we can simply describe how to use RDFa together with DC-RDF,
and slowly deprecate DC-in-HTML completely.
The above assumes that the issue of knowing when to trigger DC-in-HTML
parsing and when to trigger RDFa is solved. But it seems to me that this
is not a big issue, right?
So, to summarize, I propose to
1. Keep DC-in-HTML, but update to be DCAM-compatible
2. Create DC-using-RDFa at a later stage, and make it preferred over (1)
over time.
> However, I think Ben Adida's message here
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Aug/0119.
> html
>
> suggests a solution - augment the profile with an hGRDDL transform so
> that for the XHTML case we can map to an XHTML document which is
> RDFa-friendly - which (I think?) gives us "the best of both worlds" in
> that
>
> (a) no special casing is required in RDFa, and
> (b) DCMI can define a set of conventions that can be deployed both in
> HTML and XHTML (because they don't depend on XML Namespaces)
>
> I think this will depend on ensuring that an RDFa processor will always
> apply an hGRDDL transform before applying the native RDFa extraction
> algorithms (i.e. to avoid the generation of the spurious triples with
> predicates like http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmldc.creator and
> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtmlschema.dc as above), but as long as that is
> the case, then I _think_ we can have a profile which uses the
> conventions proposed and which is also "RDFa-friendly" (via hGRDDL).
>
> (I'm a bit unclear about the status of hGRDDL at this point in time, I
> must admit.)
This seems to me to be the cleanest solution at this point in time,
>
> We may still want to consider changing the separator in what I called
> "DC-HTML Prefixed Names" from a period to a colon? I'm not sure whether
> that would be a good thing to do or not: given that they aren't QNames
> and the prefixes won't be mapped to XML Namespace Names, it may be
> confusing to make that change.
Plus it would leave existing data in the dark. If we are to keep
DC-in-HTML as a non-RDFa solution, I think it's better to keep it close
to the old specs.
/Mikael
>
> Cheers
>
> Pete
>
> ---
> Pete Johnston
> Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
> Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
> Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
>
--
<[log in to unmask]>
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
|