ReSpec and RDFa support

[Shane McCarron]

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).

[Gregg Kellogg]

I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org <http://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 <http://schema.org/>) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org <http://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

[Gregg Kellogg]

I have started the process of changing the RDFa support over to relying upon the schema.org <http://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 <http://schema.org/>) then use RDFa 1.1 and schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms. Otherwise support the current behavior (which is a hybrid of dublin core, bibo, and w3c terms).

I think using schema.org <http://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 <http://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