W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > January 2010

Re: RDFa Vocabularies

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:09:57 +0100
Message-ID: <4B52D3E5.2080201@w3.org>
To: Brian Peterson <publicayers@verizon.net>
CC: 'RDFa mailing list' <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

I think you have legitimate issues that have to be handled (eg, what
happens if there is a name clash). However... I do not thing anybody at
any time proposed the @vocab as a replacement of the current mechanism.
In other words, applications can stay with URIs and CURIEs and ignore
this mechanism if they want. Is this the way you understood it?



On 2010-1-17 06:35 , Brian Peterson wrote:
> The document indicates that comments from the public are welcome, so if you don't mind...
> I'm part of a group that is promoting a Linked Data architecture at our organization, and we're advocating XHTML+RDFa as the primary response format for web services. We find there are many benefits for using XHTML+RDFa for data requests as well as web pages.
> The CURIE syntax appeared at first to be a small step away from URIs, but they've proven useful for reducing the size of the docs, so I've come to accept them. Plus, the URIs can be recovered easily enough.
> Using this @vocab framework is a giant leap away from URIs. At least CURIEs could be processed with just local information; now there could be many additional dereferences required just to parse the document for data. This has the potential to kill attempts to use XHTML+RDFa for Linked Data because of the possible inefficiencies.
> Doesn't this introduce the possibility of name clashes? If you download the @vocab docs and some have different mappings for a term, which one do you take? All?
> I think this proposed addition should be declined, even if the specification covers this issue of terms with multiple mappings. RDF uses URI references specifically to avoid this issue (among other reasons, of course). I would prefer to see other solutions to help authors rather than diluting or weakening the RDF basis for RDFa.
> It appears to me that this change would come at a high cost, particularly when there are other ways of helping authors with semantic markup. Perhaps editors could be made to assist with semantic markup? Maybe allow for a vocab mapping shortcut but use a post-processing script that replaces the terms with URIs or CURIEs. That way the cost is paid up front, once, and consumers don't have to worry about it. This would allow for authoring convenience without requiring the additional complexity, inefficiency, and ambiguity to parsing.
> Brian Peterson
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Manu Sporny
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 11:02 PM
> To: RDFa mailing list
> Subject: RDFa Vocabularies
> I had an action to generate spec text for pulling in external vocabulary
> documents. Here's the first cut:
> This document outlines an extension to the the syntax and processing
> rules that would allow the list of reserved words recognized by RDFa to
> be extended. The goal of this mechanism is to make authoring RDFa easier
> for web developers and designers.
> http://rdfa.digitalbazaar.com/specs/rdfa-vocab-20100111.html
> -- manu
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-rdfa-minutes.html#action03


Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf

Received on Sunday, 17 January 2010 09:09:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:34 UTC