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

Re: Dumb Question

From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:44:47 -0400
Message-ID: <c2f4700705311744jf8159a3n800e76bc647bf46f@mail.gmail.com>
To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

My head is spinning. We'll never finish. :(

-Elias

PS. Sorry I didn't make it to the call. Crazy busy at work.

On 5/31/07, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Shane,
>
> Fair points, all.
>
> So what about coming at this a different way?
>
> >  ...I know that we don't like having people duplicate things...
>
> If we decide to go the route that I've been suggesting, where we have
> RDFa-core and then a language-specific 'interpretation', then we could
> avoid the question of attribute duplication altogether; if we consider
> something to be important then it needs to go into the core attribute
> list, because those are our core 'concepts'. If that feature is then
> duplicated when RDFa-core is hosted by another language, it doesn't
> matter, because in many ways duplicate attributes is what it's all
> about; the host language 'interpretation' is all about saying, 'given
> this language and this mark-up, what could we reasonably say it
> means'.
>
> We might therefore consider that representing rdf:type is of such
> fundamental usefulness that RDFa-core needs to have an attribute to do
> it. That would be independent of any host language that might
> additionally define one of its attributes to be a mapping for
> rdf:type, just in the same way that HTML/XHTML defines @rel to be a
> mapping for @property when used with @href (which is itself a mapping
> for @resource).
>
> As you can see, what I'm getting at is that we probably need an
> attribute for 'type' indication that is independent of any decision we
> make about @role or @class.
>
> Now, I happen to disagree that we should avoid defining a mapping for
> @class, but if we put a new attribute into RDFa-core to represent
> rdf:type then we can fight the great 'what does class mean in HTML'
> battle another day, since we'd have achieved the most important
> requirement which is to have a way of marking up RSS feeds
> efficiently. :)
>
> What do you think? And if you like the idea of putting the attribute
> into RDFa-core, what shall we call it? Naming attributes...we always
> seem to have a problem with that. But given that @type is bound to
> clash in just about any host language, we might have to think
> laterally...what about @isa, which I think is the N3 way of doing it?:
>
>   <a>
>     <b about="s" isa="foaf:Person" />
>   </a>
>
> etc.
>
> Also, now I think about it, in the modern RDF-world, is owl:sameAs
> just as important as rdf:type? Whilst we're looking at RDFa-core,
> should we also be thinking along these lines:
>
>   <a>
>     <b about="[a:b]" sameAs="foaf:Person" />
>   </a>
>
> Any thoughts from RDF bods?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
> --
>   Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer
>
>   mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232
>   http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com
>
>   standards. innovation.
>
>
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 00:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:23 UTC