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

Re: further on ISSUE-39

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:54:49 +0100
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Message-Id: <CB7FCC33-2BD0-4CBA-BCB5-7442CC07D185@deri.org>
Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org

On 13 Aug 2010, at 12:43, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> So if you apply OWL reasoning to the profile document, you get:
>>
>> <http://www.ex.org/vocab/1.0/MyTerm> rdfa:term "exampleTerm" .
>> <http://www.ex.org/vocab/2.0/MyTerm> rdfa:term "exampleTerm" .
>>
>> This just means the profile author has established a mapping of the  
>> same term to two different URIs. I suppose the RDFa draft already  
>> specifies how to handle profiles like that? I read the document but  
>> couldn't tell -- this needs to be tightened up in the document IMO,  
>> and that should then take care of the owl:sameAs issue.
>>
>>> Unless we can, somehow, formally _restrict_ the effect of an  
>>> rdfa:term predicate on a specific graph somehow (that may be a  
>>> possibility but I am not 100% sure how to do that, but maybe we  
>>> can), this may create the same type of issues as the ones Toby is  
>>> referring to.
>>
>> You say it “may create the same type of isses”. Well, does it or  
>> does it not? If it does, example please. If not, let's move on.
>
> For the current setup it does. Section 9 says
>
> [[[
> If one of the objects is not a Literal or if there are additional  
> rdfa:uri or rdfa:term predicates sharing the same subject, no  
> mapping is created.
> ]]]
>
> which, if we translated to the new setup, would mean that both  
> triples would be ignored, ie, no term mapping would be done.

Well, the current text says that this would be ignored:

_:mapping rdfa:uri "...uri1"; rdfa:uri "...uri2"; rdfa:term "term" .

because there are two different rdfa:uri values for the same subject.  
But the following *does* establish a “conflicting” mapping and is not  
ignored, because the subjects are different:

_:mapping1 rdfa:uri "...uri1"; rdfa:term "term" .
_:mapping2 rdfa:uri "...uri2"; rdfa:term "term" .

So I believe the current draft isn't really clear about how to handle  
the case of mapping one term to two different URIs.

Richard
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 11:55:25 GMT

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