W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Further changes to URI and CURIE processing description

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:02:31 +0100
Message-ID: <47988C67.1090005@w3.org>
To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
Cc: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Mark Birbeck wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>> Hm. I have not thought of @name at all! But my recollection was that we
>> would leave @name out of the RDFa picture altogether, so I am not sure
>> what you refer to when you say "@name we;ll have to do what I've done
>> with @rel/@rev".
> Well, the reason we devised @property was because we couldn't
> generalise @name in the same way that we did with @rel and @rev. So
> that gives us two issues. The first is whether this should generate a
> triple or not:
>   <meta name="description" content="My site" />
> I think it would be very odd for it not to, and don't recall us ever
> saying that @name should be ignored. In fact I think the view was
> usually that @name is the same as @property, which raises the second
> issue...why bother? In other words, should this generate a triple:
>   <meta name="dc:title" content="My site" />

Well... I do not remember the exact reasons, but I am sure at some point 
it was decided to completely ignore @name, I just do not remember why. I 
know it was decided because in the first implementation I had it was one 
of my 'preprocessing' steps, and I had to comment it out! (It is still 
there, easy to revive:-)


> My view is that this should *not* generate a triple, but the first
> example should. My rationale is that there is no point in polluting
> the legacy space with CURIEs, or polluting the new attribute @property
> with legacy values, if we don't have to. We *do* have to with @rel and
> @rev, but let's keep it at that.
>> I have no problem defining @property as CURIE and leave it at that. I
>> guess my only issue is consistency: if this is what we do than the list
>> of values in section 9.2.5 of the current syntax document is irrelevant
>> and should be removed (as, as I said in my comment, most of section 9
>> should be removed in my view...:-)
> Yes, I agree, and on section 9, too, which I have commented on in the
> other thread.
> Regards,
> Mark


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, 24 January 2008 13:02:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:26 UTC