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

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

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:00:46 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201211DCD@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>
Cc: "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>


Ben,

I already opted for 'instanceOf' [1] ;)

Cheers,
	Michael

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/07/12-rdfa-irc#T15-38-57

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ben Adida
>Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 2:05 AM
>To: Ivan Herman
>Cc: RDFa; SWD WG
>Subject: 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 05:58:40 GMT

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