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

Re: Re:

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:22:16 +0100
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <ADE26B8E-5F36-42FF-AD97-D6E7587CBCE5@deri.org>
Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org

On 12 Aug 2010, at 14:31, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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.

I am very concerned about term mappings, because I believe that the  
deployment story for RDFa 1.1 and onwards will be mostly about  
profiles with term mappings.

I see prefix mappings as less critical, their main use IMO is to keep  
the old RDF-heads happy. I don't really have an opinion on their  
modelling. My intuition is that they are syntactical, while term  
mappings say something meaningful about classes and properties. I  
found Toby's examples below compelling.

Best,
Richard


>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Linked Data Technologist  Linked Data Research Centre
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
skype:richard.cyganiak
tel:+353-91-49-5711
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 14:22:52 GMT

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