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

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 UTC