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

Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core]

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:05:13 +0100
Message-ID: <4C407529.2030406@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
  Hello Manu,

On 16/07/2010 15:17, Manu Sporny wrote:
>>> The biggest question is the value of this feature? What is the use
>>> case that we are attempting to support? Does this overly-complicate
>>> RDFa without much payback?
>>  From experience I have to run two parsers one to produce a list of
>> prefix mappings (whether the profile has been cached or not) these
>> prefix mapings (all of them) then have to be injected into a second
>> instance in order to parse the containing RDFa of the referring page. I
>> have found downloading a list of prefix mappings from
>> http://prefix.cc/popular/all.file.txt and processing that faster at
>> resolving prefixes than processing @profile. In short I'd rather not :)
> Are you saying that you would rather not have to support this feature?

Yes I am, but not because I don't like the profile mechanism, for many 
years I have hoped that @profile could be used in a pragmatic way,  but 
in the real world I suspect it will be little used because there is much 
more value embedding meta-data in the page itself than referencing an 
external document, think microformats and its @profile usage which is 
almost none existent in the "real world" despite how much you promote 
its use, old habits die hard :)

> Or that you'd rather not have to download a @profile document to figure
> out the default vocabulary? Or something else?

I don't know if RDFa1.1 *needs* something else @vocab and @prefix seems 
to cover most or all of my use cases, both attributes are very practical 
and useful where as @profile is perhaps more lazy-web so to speak and 
shouldn't really be encouraged in web-standards.

> Thanks for the feedback, Martin :)
>

No problem ;)

Best wishes.

-- 
Martin McEvoy
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 15:05:55 GMT

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