W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2005

Re: Comments on RDF/A spec

From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:33:09 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20051027192717.02f614a8@127.0.0.1>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

At 12:00 PM 10/27/2005 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>Ben Adida wrote:
>>
>>>Looks very good. Fixes the inheritance problems of last year's version.
>>>Although, with this certain idioms might become a bit wordy ...
>>... I'm trying to partially address that with predicate inheritance under specific circumstances:
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/2005-current-issues#predicate-inheritance 
>(long comment - sorry)
>Perhaps overly influenced by both RDF/XML and N3 I feel that predicate inheritance is not a common usage pattern, and so think any additional complexity is probably not worth it. (Trade off between difficulty in learning the rules and ease of writing the syntax)

I side with Jeremy on this.  The example idiom in the issues list
doesn't strike me as likely to appear often whereas lists are
common and may have more complex semantics than simply
repeating a predicate.

I vote for simplicity in this pass.  Once we have more deployment
experience we can see if there are any other shortcuts that then
make sense.

>I think the big improvement in this version from last year's version reflects that efforts to second guess what people might think more complex structures might mean were probably misguided. i.e. overall additional complexity is unhelpful.

yes!  keep it simple.

-Ralph
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2005 23:33:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:00 GMT