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

Re: Determination of subjects/objects (was: ISSUE-42)

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:55:07 +0100
Message-ID: <a707f8300707270855n1e78c6a8l807020d97f5b4c0d@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Ben/Ivan,

I haven't had a chance to re-read this thread, so I'm not going to say
anything on the substance. But if you don't mind, I'd like to comment
on a recurring theme, which seems exemplified by the following:

> I have a visceral problem with about="_:", and that is that it makes
> bnodes explicit, which I really don't want to do to HTML authors. That's
> just too much RDF.
>
> We may begin to hit diminishing ROI here, and I'm starting to lean
> towards supporting fewer of these constructs in order to not complicate
> the syntax. I can't see myself being convinced that about="_:" is going
> to help without hurting more....

I don't see the need to 'protect' authors who are not familiar with
RDF from RDF constructs that they will never use. If someone from the
RDF community thinks this is useful, and _if_ we can support it
without it getting in the way, then why not?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we _must_ support these features;
only that we don't need to argue against them on the grounds that they
will confuse authors who are not familiar with RDF, since they will
never see them.

(I haven't yet needed to name an anonymous node...has anyone else. :)

Regards,

Mark

-- 
  Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer

  mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
  http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com

  standards. innovation.
Received on Monday, 30 July 2007 15:46:22 GMT

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