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

Re:

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:31:12 +0200
Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <8302B137-B3F4-4A71-BB12-017CFE51B0BC@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>

On Aug 12, 2010, at 14:00 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

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

Hey Richard,

I just want to understand this: did you propose to change the term mapping approach to something like: 

<blabla> rdfa:term "something"

whereas leaving the prefix mapping the way it is now in the document? This was not really clear.

Ivan

> 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>
>> 
>> 
> 


----
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 Thursday, 12 August 2010 13:30:05 GMT

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