W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2010

Re:

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:00:01 +0100
To: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Message-Id: <3D1A4453-6944-4D29-861A-7A2150815706@deri.org>
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Toby,

I was talking about term mappings, not prefix mappings. Your arguments  
below don't work for term mappings.

Best,
Richard


On 12 Aug 2010, at 10:24, Toby Inkster wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:40:04 +0200
> Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> This was discussed several times on the mailing list and I fully
>> understand your issues. Here is the reason I was in favour of the
>> current setup, but I am absolutely open to discussion because, well,
>> it does complicate processing (speaking as an implementer).
>
> FWIW, I agree with your reasoning for the current vocab. Prefix and  
> term
> mappings are semantically a relationship between two strings.
>
> Imagine this:
>
> 	<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> rdfa:prefix "foaf" .
>
> Now, the following is also true (probably):
>
> 	<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>
> 	  a owl:Ontology ;
> 	  owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)> .
>
> Thus it follows that:
>
> 	<http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)>
> 	  rdfa:prefix "foaf" .
>
> Thus an RDFa processor could expand 'foaf:name' to:
>
> 	<http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)name>
>
> Which we wouldn't want to happen.
>
> In RDF terms, when we're defining prefixes and terms we're not
> describing the underlying resources - we're just talking about
> the xsd:strings. We're not even talking about xsd:anyURIs, because
> say, "htt" is a valid expansion for a prefix, which might be used
> as follows:
>
> 	prefix="h: htt"
> 	property="h:p://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
>
> So I'd recommend keeping the current pattern, though I think the
> range of rdfa:uri should be changed to xsd:string for the above
> reason.
>
> Another argument against switching to
>
> 	<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> rdfa:prefix "foaf" .
>
> would be the fact that you'd lose the owl:FunctionalProperty-ness of
> rdfa:prefix and rdfa:term.
>
> -- 
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 12:00:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:07 GMT