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: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:20:00 -0500
Message-ID: <4C4086B0.3090006@aptest.com>
To: martin@weborganics.co.uk
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
I think that the @profile mechanism has a lot of potential benefit for 
people who author content but are perhaps less sophisticated than you or 
I.  I don't envision a lot of people creating profiles that are widely 
used.  But I do envision some organizations creating compelling profiles 
that get used by their user base.  Think Drupal, Wordpress, Joomla.  
Think Google, Yahoo!, Facebook.  Common collections of prefix 
declarations and terms that I can count on when working in an 
environment seem like they should be attractive to the more casual 
content creator.  At least, that's my hope.  Declaring 10 prefixes in 
every document is icky.

On 7/16/2010 10:05 AM, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>  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.
>

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 16:20:48 GMT

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