ISSUE-35: Consider relationship between LinkTypes in RDFa and the IETF LinkType registry
IETF LinkType registry
Consider relationship between LinkTypes in RDFa and the IETF LinkType registry
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDFa 1.1 Core
- Raised by:
- Manu Sporny
- Opened on:
- 2010-07-14
- Description:
- The IETF is preparing to setup a LinkType registry. Many of the LinkTypes come from W3C specs. There are a few LinkTypes like 'license' and 'service' that come from other IETF specs.
We should discuss the positive and negative effects of attempting to merge W3C and IETF LinkTypes specified in this registry. Do we want to migrate all LinkTypes in the registry into the XHTML+RDFa and HTML+RDFa specs?
http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-10.html
Also note that comparisons are done in a case-insensitive fashion in that spec. This would mean an additional set of LinkTypes that should be generated based on a case-insensitive match. For example, rel="SERvice" should generate a triple if we merge IETF LinkTypes into the XHTML+RDFa spec. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: RDFa Meeting minutes... (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-10-01)
- Re: RDFa Meeting minutes... (from tai@g5n.co.uk on 2010-09-30)
- Re: (late) agenda for meeting, 2010-09-30 (from mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com on 2010-09-30)
- (late) agenda for meeting, 2010-09-30 (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-09-30)
- Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-11: default prefix declarations (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-09-03)
- PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-11: default prefix declarations (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-02)
- ISSUE-35 (IETF LinkType registry): Consider relationship between LinkTypes in RDFa and the IETF LinkType registry [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-07-14)
Related notes:
RESOLVED to not have RDFa 1.1 depend on the IETF LinkTypes registry at the moment. Merging the link type registry should be considered on a RDFa implementation language-by-language basis. If the IETF LinkTypes registry is accepted as the official LinkTypes registry for the Web, the terms should be placed into the corresponding default RDFa Profile document for the language:
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/meetings/2010-09-30#resolution_2
That is to say, the hard-coded term mappings in RDFa 1.0 for a language have been de-coupled from the main specification body. The RDFa language term mappings are now expressed via an RDFa 1.1 Profile document.
Display change log
