W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lld@w3.org > November 2010

Re: aside: mentioning multiple types of a thing in RDF/XML vs RDFa

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 13:08:29 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTikoY37OBcam985OqUMxYOW+B-U=7mFUca4S8v8Y@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-lld <public-lld@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Neubert Joachim <J.Neubert@zbw.eu> wrote:
> +1 on this one.
> When additional classes come at almost no cost, it's easy to assign a custom
> subclass for the sake of precision and use in custom applications, and the
> widely understood superclass as well. I think that's a good practice, don't
> relying on client side reasoning (which is spare, as Ross stated). May be
> this practice could overcome some hesitance in coining subclasses (or
> subproperties, where whitespace separated lists in RDFa work too).

Yup - quite right re properties too. In fact mentioning multiple
properties in RDF/XML can be really ugly, if you're trying to make
some markup that XML folk will say 'that looks ok'.

I've just written this up a bit more and blogged it,
http://danbri.org/words/2010/11/02/572 ...since I think it's quite a
key part of the publishing landscape and hasn't had much discussion to


Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 12:09:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:27:41 UTC