W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-42: @src, following up, proposal to resolve

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:23:33 +0200
Message-ID: <46935E25.1010003@w3.org>
To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
I should have read all my piled up mails before replying! I would look
less stupid if I had read

http://www.w3.org/mid/46928CBB.8080605@adida.net

before writing this mail:-)

I will come back to the original issues with my newly found wisdom...

Ivan

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Ben,
> 
> forgive me if I got it wrong here, but I think it is worth making this
> absolutely clear. As far as I am concerned, it is not really the case
> for me:-(
> 
> Question: what is the subject of @the_attribute_that_shall_not_be_named?
> 
> Until now, my mental model was that this attribute is simply a syntactic
> sugar, ie,
> 
> <... the_attribute_that_shall_not_be_named="a:b">...
> 
> is the same as
> 
> <... rel="rdf:type" resource="a:b"...>
> 
> That means that he _subject_ of rdf:type is, well, whatever the RDFa
> spec generally says on going 'up' and finding the right @about.
> 
> (Actually, if I use some of the examples in the primer, if
> 
> <a rel="rdf:type" href="http://blabla">...
> 
> then the subject of "rdf:type" is still the @about somewhere up the line.
> 
> As an aside, if so, I am not sure I understand your remark "then that
> applies to @src, just like it would apply to @href." I may miss
> something here, too.)
> 
> So, if I am still right (and I may not be!), it seems that both in the
> case of the @src and  http://www.w3.org/mid/46900890.3030500@adida.net
> we are talking about changing that mental model, ie, that in some cases
> @the_attribute_that_shall_not_be_named is _not_ a shorthand for
> @rel="rdf:type" because it has its own rules on choosing the subject.
> 
> I am _not_ (yet?) saying that is wrong, what I am saying that we should
> be clear about it and try to come up with a reasonable definition on
> what the subject for @the_attribute_that_shall_not_be_named. Otherwise
> it all looks a bit ad-hoc to me, and I am not sure that is good.
> 
> Please, correct me if I got it wrong somewhere!
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Ben Adida wrote:
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Hm. That is not what I meant. My impression is that
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/mid/46900890.3030500@adida.net
>>>
>>> means that @the_attribute_that_shall_not_be_named, usually, refers to
>>> the subject but, in some cases, to the object...
>> Right, so that's the case we're talking about for IMG, where if you use
>> @class (or whatever it becomes), then that applies to @src, just like it
>> would apply to @href. Am I missing your point/objection?
>>
>> And Shane's comment is exactly right: @src is about embedding, @href is
>> about linking, but really they should probably function very similarly
>> in RDFa.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf


Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2007 10:23:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT