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

Re: chaining-friendly rules for @instanceof

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:37:09 +0100
Message-ID: <473BE915.4010903@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Manu,

thanks a lot. That helps, but I am still a bit puzzled (bear with me,
jet-lag in Korea is hard!)

Manu Sporny wrote:
> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Bottomline: would it be possible for those of us who are newbies in the
>> group to summarize what would be your proposal at this moment to solve
>> the @instanceof deadlock? So that we could compare the two and make a
>> decision?
>
[snip]
> 
> These are roughly Mark (please correct me if I'm wrong, Mark) and my rules:
> 
> 1. @about       [Set the Subject]
> 2. @instanceof  [Set the Subject Type]
> 3. @rel/@rev    [Set the Predicate]
> 4. @property    [Set the Predicate]
> 5. @resource    [Set the Object or Subject if there is none]

I do not understand what you mean here. What is the reference to Subject
here? I thought that Subject is either @about or inherited from parents'
@about, so to say...

Or do you mean the Subject for the children, ie, the chaining?

> 6. @href        [Set the Object or Subject if there is none]
> 7. @src         [Set the Object or Subject if there is none]
> 8. @content     [Set the Object or Subject if there is none]

Why would @content set the subject? It is a literal, isn't it?

> 9. @datatype    [Set the Object Data Type]
> 

Ivan


> It is important to note that both sets of rules work better for certain
> use cases than others.
> 
> The reason we're having such a hard time with this is because we don't
> agree on which use cases are going to be more common or important than
> others. Really, none of us can say a particular use case is going to be
> more prevalent than another because people don't mark up semantic data
> on their web pages yet... we don't have enough prior art to go on, thus
> we're playing a guessing game where each approach can pick examples to
> prove its point.
> 
> Ben's approach is best if "Ivan knows a person, that knows a person
> named Ralph" is a more important use case than the "Keep it simple and
> easy to understand" and  "Allow cut-and-paste - don't flip/flop
> semantics based on the existence of certain properties".
> 
> If we can't agree on which use cases are more important than the others,
> then we'll have to fall back to something we do agree on:
> 
> Simplicity and ease of understanding.
> 
> I think Mark and my approach fit that basic philosophy, if only slightly
> better than Ben's approach. In the end, I don't think it is going to
> matter that much. People are going to be using RDFa authoring tools to
> write this stuff for them, anyway.
> 
> -- manu
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf



Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 06:37:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:18 GMT