W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2009

[Bug 8107] I dont think that itemid should be prohibited if there is no itemtype. Several of the use cases would work fine with an id but no type

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:27:41 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1N314P-0002c5-9k@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8107


John Giannandrea <jg@metaweb.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jg@metaweb.com




--- Comment #2 from John Giannandrea <jg@metaweb.com>  2009-10-28 05:27:40 ---
Types and Schemas (properties) need vocabularies, simple identifiers do not. 
So if I wanted to author a web page about the Eiffel Tower, I could use this
itemid  http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eiffel_Tower even though I dont know what
kind of thing it is (a structure, a monument, a location?)

Services to give strong URIs for human concepts already exist, like
http://lookup.dbpedia.org/query.aspx?q=eifel

People often link in HTML to a wikipedia page for example.  They know what the
item on the page corresponds to, even though they may not have any structured
data for it in the DOM yet.

The restriction that you need to know the type to specify a useful itemid seems
overly proscriptive and not in the spirit of HTML markup.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 05:27:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 October 2009 05:27:57 GMT