- From: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:37:50 -0500
- To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>, St?phane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:24:54AM -0500, Paolo Ciccarese wrote: > He pointed out that while we are absolutely free to pick our own prefix > definitions, we could consider of aligning them with the prefixes of the > RDFa core context: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 > > In particular, that would mean to map > dc = http://purl.org/dc/terms/ > dc11 = http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ > > It seems, the DC folks recommended those prefixes to the RDFa WG because > they want to slowly deprecate the old 1.1 elements. > > It is probably not crucial but, in general, I think it is probably a good > idea to align our context with existing ones in the same ecosystem. +1 to align with RDFa core context As I recall it, the mapping of dc: to /terms/ came about because this is what the RDFa community preferred at the time, and DCMI had no objection. After all, they are "just prefixes"... ;-) This has, alas, created some confusion for those who had mapped dc: to /elements/1.1/, though the existence of range-less and ranged properties in parallel has been a problem since ranges were introduced in January 2008. DCMI "gently promotes" the ranged properties of /terms/ while avoiding the word "deprecate" because part of the community feels that the range-less properties may in some cases be preferable. Tom -- Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 16:38:24 UTC