W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Namespace (was: Re: Preparing editor's drafts -- Q's for the team contacts)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:28:08 +0200
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EC99049F-83C3-4BAE-8188-F50B97E61792@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>

On May 25, 2011, at 13:16 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 25 May 2011, at 11:58, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> From where I stand, I would opt for the creation of an HTML5+RDFa file, with a (probably off-line generated) RDF/XML and Turtle versions. This can be set up via content negotiations. This is the way 
>> 
>> http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa
>> 
>> has been set up.
> 
> This is the approach I had in mind.
> 
>> But we should realize that in view of the size of the vocabulary, this is a non-trivial amount of work.
>> 
>> Another possibility is to mark up the RDF Schema document[1] with RDFa right from the start so that we could extract the RDF/XML or Turtle automatically by some RDFa tools (my distiller can do that without problem).
> 
> Well, and perhaps a simple HTML reference document can be generated from the RDF and served at the namespace as well via conneg? This would fulfill my requirement that the namespace should have a human-readable view as well.
> 
> Note that I don't see that working for the rdf: namespace because its definitions are scattered over several documents and the terms are not presented in a way that would facilitate the extraction of, for example, useful rdfs:comments.
> 
>> I am really in favour of the latter, ie, to use RDFa as part of the Schema document. If we have to have a separate document in the namespace, we are bound to introduce errors...
> 
> I share the concern about duplication of information. But RDFS needs both a narrative specification document and a term-by-term reference. My experience from other vocabularies is that it can be hard to satisfy both needs with a single document. OTOH I trust the experience of the RDFS editor in these matters :-)
> 

Ok, I guess we share the same concerns, and we will see how it goes. But I agree that we should follow the ns/rdfa model.

(alas!, it is not possible to define a new vocabulary URI for rdf and rdfs; it would be sooooo much better to use

http://www.w3.org/ns/rdf
http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfs

:-(



> Best,
> Richard


----
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
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 11:26:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:43 GMT