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

Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:52:37 +0200
To: public-html-data-tf@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v3b2xzj4sr6mfa@kirk>
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:26:43 +0200, Gregg Kellogg  
<gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:

> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/24af1cde0da1/microdata-rdf/index.html

"Otherwise, construct predicate from type by removing everything following  
the last SOLIDUS U+002F ("/") or NUMBER SIGN U+0023 ("#") in type and  
append name."

The identifier in itemtype happens to be a URL, but it really is supposed  
to be an opaque identifier, so this stands in direct conflict with the  

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:30:57 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> Note that the property "name" in the vocabulary  
> "http://example.org/feline"
> and the property "http://example.org/feline#name" have absolutely not
> relationship in microdata. They are different properties and cannot be
> mechanically considered to be equivalent in any way. Any use of microdata
> that claims that a full URL property name is the same property as a short
> name in a specific vocabulary is wrong. It's two properties. They might
> have the same semantics and can be used as equivalent, but they are
> different properties and any specification that defines or uses both  
> would
> need to define how to handle clashes.

This kind of mapping can only really be done on a vocabulary-specific  
basis, for vocabularies that define both forms to be equivalent.

Philip Jägenstedt
Core Developer
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 08:52:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:05 UTC