W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-data-tf@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:28:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+Yv7K5j78ZaEo7c8TF72j0EYjhKeFMndcKLkMACp7xy0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On 14 November 2011 15:05, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> I am not vehemently against adopting some OWL statements, essentially the equivalency things. Can you submit a kind of an error message to the RDFa WG on this? It would make it easier to discuss this.

Sure, can you remember me what spec this is a comment on? :)

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_guidelines
I guess...?

" If possible, vocabulary descriptions should include subproperty and
subclass statements linking the vocabulary terms to other, well-known
vocabularies."
I'd suggest "subproperty, subclass and other mapping statements (eg.
owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty)" linking".

However that only covers vocab publishing, not consumption. Ah, here we go:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_expansion_details

I need to think about this more. This is interesting and potentially
very useful stuff but kind of scary too, since there are environments
(e.g. untrusted wifi LAN) where these vocabulary fetches could pull
down malware triples, even while the source document being parsed is
trustable. I hope the parser 'post-processing' APIs will have some
sensible controls there, but I'm not sure what would count as
sensible...

Anyway feel free to pass along my comments re the OWL part...

Dan
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 14:29:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 November 2011 14:29:19 GMT