Ivan’s private site

August 3, 2010

New RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 drafts

Filed under: Semantic Web,Work Related — Ivan Herman @ 20:49
Tags: , , , ,

W3C has just published updated drafts of RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1. These are “just” new heart-beat documents, meaning that they are not fundamentally new (the first drafts of these documents were published last April) but not yet ”Last Call” documents, i.e., the group does not yet consider the specification work finished. Although… in fact it is not far from that point. The WG has spent the last few weeks to get through open issues, and not many are left open at this moment.

So what has changed since my last blog on the subject where I introduced the new features compared to RDFa 1.0? In fact, nothing spectacular. Lots of minor clarifications issues to make things more precise. There has been a change on the treatment of XML Literals: whereas, in RDFa 1.0, XML Literals are automatically generated any time XML markup is in the text, RDFa 1.1 explicitly requires a corresponding datatype specification; otherwise a plain literal is created in RDF. (This is the only backward incompatibility of RDFa 1.0, as foreseen by the charter.)

Probably the most important addition to RDFa Core was triggered by a comment of Jeni Tenison (though the problem was raised by others, too). Jeni emphasized a slightly dangerous aspect of the profile mechanism in RDFa 1.1. To remind the reader: using the @profile attribute the author of an RDFa 1.1 file can refer to another file somewhere on the Web; that “profile file” may include, in one place, prefix declarations, term specifications, and (this is also new in this version!) a default term URI (see again my earlier blog on the details). The question is: what happens if the profile file is unreachable? The danger is that an RDFa 1.1 would possibly generate wrong triples, which is actually worse than not generate triples at all. The decision of the group (as Jeni actually proposed) was that the whole DOM subtree, i.e., all triples would be dropped starting with the element with the un-referenceable profile.

The profile mechanism has stirred quite some interest both among users of RDFa and elsewhere. Martin Hepp was probably the first to publish an RDF 1.1 profile for GoodRelations and related vocabulary prefixes at http://www.heppnetz.de/grprofile/. To use, essentially, his example, this means that one can use

<div profile="http://www.heppnetz.de/grprofile/">
  <span about="#company" typeof="gr:BusinessEntity>
    <span property="gr:legalName">Hepp's bakery</span>,
    see also the <a rel="rdfs:seeAlso" href="http://example.org/bakery">
    home page of the bakery.</a>

Because Martin’s profile includes a prefix definition for rdfs, too (alongside a number of other prefixes), the profile definition replaces a whole series of namespace declarations that were necessary in RDFa 1.0. I would guess that similar profile files, with term or prefix definitions, will be defined for foaf or for Dublin Core, too. Other obvious candidates for such profile definitions are the “big” users of RDFa information like Facebook or Google, who can specify the vocabularies they understand, i.e., index. (This did come up at the W3C camp in Raleigh, during the exciting discussion on the Facebook vocabulary.) Finally, another interesting discussion generated by RDFa’s profile mechanism occurred at the “RDF Next” Workshop in Palo Alto a few weeks ago: some participants proposed to consider a similar mechanism in a next version of Turtle (I must admit this came as a surprise, although it does make sense…)

As for implementations of profiles? Profiles are defined in such a way that an RDFa processor can recursively invoke itself to extract the necessary information for processing; indeed, RDFa is also used to encode the prefix, term, etc, definitions (Turtle or RDF/XML can also be used, but RDFa is the only required format). This means that an RDFa processor does not have to implement a different parser to handle the profile information. My ”shadow” RDFa distiller implements this (as well as all RDFa 1.1 features) and it was not complicated. It actually implements a caching mechanism, too: some well known and well published profiles can be stored locally so that the distiller does not go through an extra HTTP request all the time (yes, I know, this may lead to inconsistencies in theory but if such cache is refreshed regularly via, say, a crontab job, it should be o.k. in practice). At the moment the content of that cache is of course curated by hand. (The usual caveat applies: this is code in development, with bugs, with possibly frequent and unannounced changes…) You are all welcome to try the shadow distiller to see what RDFa is capable of. Of course, other RDFa 1.1 implementations are in the making. If you have one, it would be good to know about them, the Working Group is constantly looking for implementation experiences…

About these ads


  1. [...] New RDFa Core 1.1 and XHTML+RDFa 1.1 drafts [...]

    Pingback by Scott Banwart's Blog » Blog Archive » Distributed Weekly 62 — August 6, 2010 @ 16:01

  2. Dear Ivan,

    I understand that this specification is oriented towards an annotation embedded in a website (I’m just working on the opposite strategy). But, in the near future, there will a syntax and processing rules for embedding OWL through attributes? there will be something like “Core RDFa 1.1″ to OWL?

    Thank you very much,
    – Luis

    Comment by Luis — August 16, 2010 @ 11:52

    • Luis,

      I am not sure, we certainly do not have plans for that. Note that all OWL constructs can be expressed in RDF, ie, it is possible to describe any OWL constructs in RDFa. It may not be optimal, I know, but the possibility is already there. I am not sure what the use case would be for something specific and whether there would be enough of a demand for it…



      Comment by Ivan Herman — August 16, 2010 @ 13:14

  3. Why not just use a standard HTTP cache for profiles, instead of custom solutions with cron etc.?

    Comment by Vasiliy Faronov — August 26, 2010 @ 9:53

    • That is also a possibility. I felt I had more control by doing that myself, though.

      Comment by Ivan Herman — August 26, 2010 @ 10:04

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The Rubric Theme Blog at WordPress.com.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,613 other followers

%d bloggers like this: