W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: an alternative for microformat-like simplicity

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:05:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4A60CB7A.7000408@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> I presume that you messed up the example and you wanted to use
> 'http://myvocab.org' in the second part (instead of
> 'http://ben.adida.net/vocab') right?

Yes, I messed it up, assume the vocab is always http://myvocab.org

> However, I must admit that I am not 100% sure what is being proposed in
> practice. The issue is what the requirement is on an RDFa processor.

Very little. The goal is to get simpler markup. Mark's proposal would
require a good amount of work from the RDFa processor, while I'm
proposing a much smaller amount done by the RDFa processor, and most of
the work done by the RDF store / SPARQL engine.

The overall amount of work should be pretty much the same.

> 1. A comformant RDFa processor is required to dereference the URI
> http://myvocab.org/#, extract the RDF data there,

No, definitely not proposing that :)

> 2. But, if that is _not_ the case, ie, RDFa processors are not required
> to do all that, then I do not understand what the proposal really brings
> that is not, in theory, part of the RDF/OWL infrastructure as of today.

The only change is to allow for setting a default CURIE prefix that
allows you to interpret rel="email"

> If I take your example above, using simply @xmlns (to stay with the
> current standard) I would produce with an RDFa processor
> 
> <#me> <http://myvocab.org/#name> "Ben Adida" .
> <#me> <http://myvocab.org/#email> <mailto:ben@adida.net> .

You couldn't do it with xmlns, because then you'd have to support
xmlns="...", resetting the default namespace, and we all agree that
that's a bad idea.

> I fail to see what is new in
> this case...

Very little.. and that's the point :) Just one small tweak enables the
existing RDF/OWL toolset with a microformat-like simple RDFa syntax.

> 3. As a side issue, I fully agree with Toby. _If_ we use OWL terms, we
> should be careful what we require (although users will get it wrong...).
> owl:equivalentProperty is the right thing to do even in OWL (2) Full,
> for example and not sameAs, stuff like that...

Ok, I definitely want this to be done in the *right* OWL way, but with
the least amount of complexity possible. For example, I'd like this to
be usable with the simplest variant of OWL.

-Ben
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 19:06:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 July 2009 19:06:09 GMT