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

Re: an alternative for microformat-like simplicity

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 01:11:54 +0100
Message-ID: <4A7236CA.8050000@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hello Shane, Doug...

Shane McCarron wrote:
> I appreciate that we are talking about a new attribute here, but I 
> think we may have lost sight of what the attribute is *for*.  What is 
> the purpose of this attribute?  Is it for defining CURIE prefix 
> mappings to vocabularies?  
Im guessing its defining prefix-less mappings instead of  
property="foaf:name" it could be property="name"  in both instances they 
would map to http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name, the problem I would say is 
how do you pass the prefixes and their mappings  on to the parser 
without using xmlns:foaf="..."

If it were possible, it would allow a microformats like markup, which in 
my view would be a whole lot more elegant and readable than the crufty, 
slightly over the top approach RDFa has now using xmlns, I cant help 
thinking every time I mark up RDFa how very dated  it looks, I gave up 
using mark-up like style="color:green" a  few years ago  now, RDFa makes 
me feel like I am repeating the same mistake but much, much worse, I 
really dont think RDFa will last that long if we persist on using 
prefixes and xmlns,  but maybe that's just me ;)


Best Wishes

Martin .....
> Is it for identifying the mapping to use when no prefix is used on a 
> CURIE?  Is it for both?  The name is important.  But I think it is way 
> more important to define the scope of the functionality.
> Doug Schepers wrote:
>> Hi, Folks-
>>
>> Michael Hausenblas wrote (on 7/23/09 5:05 AM):
>>>>>  I'd suggest that @prefix is maybe not the best name for the 
>>>>> attribute --
>>>>>  too focused on the mechanics of CURIE mapping. @vocab maybe?
>>>>
>>>>  I like @vocab +1 from me ;)
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> @vocab makes indeed the most sense to me as well. It conveys the 
>>> message
>>> 'here is a vocabulary from which I intend to use certain terms'.
>>
>> Yes, this is what I meant in my post as well... make it something 
>> that might be understood more easily by laymen.  @vocab is an 
>> improvement, at least for english speakers.
>>
>> Regards-
>> -Doug Schepers
>> W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
>

-- 
Martin McEvoy
http://weborganics.co.uk/
Received on Friday, 24 July 2009 00:12:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 24 July 2009 00:12:44 GMT