ReSpec and RDFa support

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

ReSpec and RDFa support

Shane McCarron-6
I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org terms.  This is pretty straightforward.  Question: is there any value in continuing to support the OLD terms as well?  In other words, if conf.doRDFa is set to something (schema.org) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org terms.  Otherwise support the current behavior (which is a hybrid of dublin core, bibo, and w3c terms).

--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and RDFa support

Gregg Kellogg-3

On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org terms.  This is pretty straightforward.  Question: is there any value in continuing to support the OLD terms as well?  In other words, if conf.doRDFa is set to something (schema.org) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org terms.  Otherwise support the current behavior (which is a hybrid of dublin core, bibo, and w3c terms).

I think using schema.org terms is probably most useful to people now. I seem to recall that DanBri had created equivalents for FOAF and DC terms, or that someone else had contributed them. Of course, there’s not a 1-1 correspondence.

Schema.org doesn’t have an equivalent for the bibo vocabulary, though; this is used for creating the TOC, IIRC.

Gregg

--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ReSpec and RDFa support

Gregg Kellogg-3

On Feb 29, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Gregg Kellogg <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Shane McCarron <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org terms.  This is pretty straightforward.  Question: is there any value in continuing to support the OLD terms as well?  In other words, if conf.doRDFa is set to something (schema.org) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org terms.  Otherwise support the current behavior (which is a hybrid of dublin core, bibo, and w3c terms).

I think using schema.org terms is probably most useful to people now. I seem to recall that DanBri had created equivalents for FOAF and DC terms, or that someone else had contributed them. Of course, there’s not a 1-1 correspondence.

Schema.org doesn’t have an equivalent for the bibo vocabulary, though; this is used for creating the TOC, IIRC.

I take it back, there are terms defined in http://bib.schema.org that will do nicely; they use the same schema: namespace, fortunately.

Gregg

Gregg

--
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops