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

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:04:47 -0700
Message-ID: <469C079F.8090201@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Everyone else on the list: time to express an opinion on which attribute
name you'd like, ASAP :)

-Ben

Ivan Herman wrote:
> instanceof is still the closest to the RDF meaning, isa refers back to
> the usage in turtle. Although I share Steven's uneasiness about the
> two-word thing, they still seem to be the best...
> 
> Among the others listed only 'kind' seems to be appropriate. The others
> convey some sort of a meaning that rdf:type does not have...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Ben Adida wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In today's telecon, we proposed and resolved to use a *new* attribute,
>> rather than @class or @role, for the rdf:type syntactic sugar. Thus,
>> @class and @role do not currently result in any triples being generated,
>> although one may consider that they will in a future version.
>>
>> The question, then, is which attribute to use. Steven expressed
>> reservations about two-word attributes like "isa" or "instanceof", and
>> instead proposed: denotes, depicts, represents, category, ilk, kind.
>>
>> Other thoughts?
>>
>> I'm partial to "instanceof" and "kind", and I have no additional
>> suggestions.
>>
>> -Ben
>>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 00:04:58 GMT

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