- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:15:33 +0100
- To: Patrick Logan <patrickdlogan@gmail.com>
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-xg-webid@w3.org
Thanks Patrick for exploring this. Some further pointers. An issue open for Microdata http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/track/issues/66 All of our implementations support rdfa and rdf/xml. So going on what is currently implemented the spec is correct. We also have a wiki page that converse the different formats http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/wiki/WebID_by_examples I wonder if the linked data crowd would prefer turtle support over rdf/xml by now. My own prejudice is that RDFa looks pretty good now. Especially RDFa 1.1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2011Dec/0057.html And has been worked through carefully. Henry On 22 Dec 2011, at 15:57, Patrick Logan wrote: > OK, that seems manageable, assuming it all specs out. > > So looking at the 12 December 2012 draft ( > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#in-portable-contacts-format-using-grddl > ), it looks like (2) RDFa and (4) RDF/XML are in the draft, but (1) > HTML+Microdata and (3) Turtle are not. > > In particular the two most relevant sections look to be: > > ======== > 3.2.4.1 Processing the WebID Profile > > The Verification Agent must be able to process documents in RDF/XML > [RDF-SYNTAX-GRAMMAR] and RDFa in XHTML [XHTML-RDFA]. The result of > this processing should be a graph of RDF relations that is queryable, > as explained in the next section. > ======== > > How should that read instead? > > And then the profile description section itself ( > http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/webid/spec/#the-webid-profile ) lists > some "should", "must", and "not required" > > ======== > foaf:mbox > > foaf:name > > foaf:depiction > > cert:RSAPublicKey > > cert:key > ======== > > Clearly (to me) Turtle can handle these. So maybe nothing more has to > be said about that but to list Turtle as an option. > > I know almost nothing about HTML+Microdata. My basic understanding is > that the "itemtype" attribute would be required to indicate some > values are foaf:mbox's, cert:key's, etc. Are there any representation > issues or pieces missing in the Microdata draft necessary to have > Microdata be unambiguously supported in the WebID spec? > > Are you (Kingsley) driving the inclusion of Microdata in the WebID spec? > > Thanks > -Patrick > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 5:23 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >> On 12/22/11 8:08 AM, Patrick Logan wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The WebID spec can require or suggest a number of common formats for >>>>> eav/spo triple transmission as the basis for effective bootstrap. >>> >>> Agreed. What should that list be at this point in time? >>> >>> -Patrick >>> >>> >> >> 1. HTML + Microdata >> 2. XHTML + RDFa >> 3. Turtle >> 4. RDF/XML . >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Kingsley Idehen >> Founder& CEO >> >> OpenLink Software >> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com >> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen >> Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen >> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about >> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen >> >> >> >> >> >> > Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Thursday, 22 December 2011 15:16:09 UTC