Bijan did not copy this to the RDFa task force, though the content of the mail is really relevant for this group, because he proposes an extra RDFa syntax. (Bijan, I hope that is all right with you.)
My initial reaction on what he proposes: it does make sense. If we define some sort of a general 'pre-processor' or hGRDDL formalism, that could be a typical case for it. I would not have a problem saying that a preprocessor goes through the DOM tree before processing and would change each occurrence of: <.... content-date="2007-12-12" ...> into <.... content="2007-12-12" datatype="xsd:date" ...> by delegating that into the preprocessor the syntax document's formal processing steps might stay unchanged. Having said that: at the f2f meeting last week we, sort of, decided to get into a 'feature freeze' mode as soon as possible to get the syntax document out and on the Rec track. This may be one of those features that might be relegated into a future version... Ivan -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Why not date=? (was Re: ODF and semantic web) Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 22:35:20 +0000 Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:35:03 +0100 From: Bijan Parsia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Elias Torres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: Bruce D'Arcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Semantic Web <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I really look forward to Elias's discussion of issues arising from his experiences working on ODF metadata. I have to say that the little he wrote thus far is *very* familiar to me. On Oct 14, 2007, at 8:00 PM, Elias Torres wrote: > Mark Birbeck wrote: [snip] >> It's especailly confusing for authors when this 'inpiration' seems to >> involve copying some RDFa attributes, but changing the names of >> others. For example, @about is used, but @datatype has been >> renamed to >> @data-type! [snip] > The ODF Metadata group was so much more welcoming to our > perspective as opposed to other non-SW bred groups and us arguing > about 'dash' felt to me disrespectful, if not rude. [snip] Presumably, as RDFa is not finalized, it could align :) However, this gets me to the real reason for replying: I'm wondering if RDFa folks would consider some authoring convenience syntax for typed literals. datatype="xsd:Bleach" is wretched for authoring no matter what the syntax. And silly too (the xsd is esp. annoying since, really, it's a fixed set of names...no namespaces needed). One could have contentDate, or just date, integer, etc. So the following spec-example: <span about="http://example.org/foo"; property="ex:bar" content="10" datatype="xsd:integer">ten</span> could be written as: <span about="http://example.org/foo"; property="ex:bar" integer="10">ten</span> Or perhaps some content syntax: <span about="http://example.org/foo"; property="ex:bar" content="10i">ten</span> Or, best, is that one defaults to "aggressive" parsing, so that things which can be parsed as more specific types than strings are so, and if you want to force a string, you have to put in an "s". After all, strings which spell numbers or dates generally are *meant* as numbers or dates. And it's generally easy enough to get back to the lexical form, or simply to preserve it. Cheers, Bijan. -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
