Re: [whatwg] Annotating structured data that HTML has no semantics for
>> 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 declare "foaf" in each document, I'm totally in agreement. I've
> considered maybe registering the "foaf" URL scheme, or using some other
> punctuation character and having people register prefixes, but I don't
> know what punctuation character to use (':' and '.' are both taken).
put in HTML5 some predefinited prefixes for @itemprop:
dc = http://purl.org/dc/terms/
foaf = http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
vcard = http://www.w3.org/2001/vcard-rdf/3.0#
owl = http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
rdf = http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfs = http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
sioc = http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#
skos = http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#
xsd = http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
also, instead of @item @itemprop @subject
is better @item @prop @subj
or @rdf-typeof @rdf-property @rdf-about (and @rdf-rel)
--
Giovanni Gentili
Re: [whatwg] Annotating structured data that HTML has no semantics for
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 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 type of items) present in imdb.com. other examples of "external annotation" could be derived from this document [1]. this option require that @subject accept: 1) ID of an element with an item attribute, in the same Document or 2) valid URL of an element with an item attribute elsewhere in the web or 3) a valid URL (ithe item is the referred document or fragment) This raises two other questions: a) In the case of properties specified for element without ancestor with an item attribute specified the corresponding item should be the document? (element body with implicit item attribute). b) Do we need to require UA to offer a standard way to visualize (at least as an option left to the user) the structured information carried in microdata ? And copy&paste? See also this email [2]. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#req-r01 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0082.html -- Giovanni Gentili
Re: [whatwg] RDFa is to structured data, like canvas is to bitmap and SVG is to vector
Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote: > It seems that you'd expect RDFa to be specced out before solving related > problems (so to push their solution). I don't think that's the right path to > follow, instead known issues must be solved before making a decision, so > that the specification can tell exactly what developers must implement I think that an help in defining of the requirements around structured data, RDFa, metadata copy&paste, semantic links [1],etc could came from the W3C document "Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0" [2] Take the requirements listed from "r01" to "r13" and replace the term "media objects" with "structured/linked data". [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0082.html [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#req-r01 -- Giovanni Gentili
Re: [whatwg] Fuzzbot (Firefox RDFa semantics processor)
James Graham: > The issue when trying to abstract problems is that you can end up doing > "architecture astronautics"; you concentrate on making generic ways to build > solutions to weakly constrained problems without any attention to the > details of those problems that make them unique. I think the right level, like in my proposal, is greatly under "astronautics" but no so low as "single vocabularies". -- Giovanni Gentili
Re: [whatwg] Fuzzbot (Firefox RDFa semantics processor)
Martin Atkins wrote: > One problem this can solve is that an agent can, given a URL that > represents a person, extract some basic profile information such as the > person's name along with references to other people that person knows. > This can further be applied to allow a user who provides his own URL > (for example, by signing in via OpenID) to bootstrap his account from > existing published data rather than having to re-enter it. > > So, to distill that into a list of requirements: > > - Allow software agents to extract profile information for a person as often > exposed on social networking sites from a page that "represents" that person. > > - Allow software agents to determine who a person lists as their friends > given a page that "represents" that person. > > - Allow the above to be encoded without duplicating the data in both > machine-readable and human-readable forms. > > Is this the sort of thing you're looking for, Ian? > >Much of the above section could be applied to any other RDF vocabulary >with a bit of search and replace, but I'll leave that to others since >FOAF is the only RDF vocabulary with which I have any experience. Why we must restrict the use case to a single vocabulary or analyze all the possibile vocabularies? I think it's be better to "generalize" the problem and find a unique solution for human/machine. I tried to expose this here... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jan/0082.html ...where the fundamental problem is described in this way: - User agents must allow users to see that there are "semantic-links" (connections to semantically structured informations) in a HTML document/application. Consequently user agents must allow users to "follow" the semantic-link, (access/interact with the linked data, embedded or external) and this involves primarily the ability to: a) view the informations b) select the informations c) copy the informations in the clipboard d) drag and drop the informations e) send that informations to another web application (or to OS applications) selected by the user. -- Giovanni Gentili
