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

Re: Draft Note for HTML WG

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:11:57 +0100
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F4CAEAE6-D28C-44A1-A840-50E8C8402928@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>

On Nov 14, 2011, at 15:28 , Dan Brickley wrote:

> 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...?
> 

Yes

> " 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...
> 

It has more weight if you report it...:-)

Ivan


> Dan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 15:09:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 November 2011 15:09:35 GMT