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

Re: ISSUE-24: Proposal for dealing with case-insensitive terms in the XHTML vocabulary

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 08:48:01 -0500
Message-ID: <4C484C11.2060105@aptest.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>


On 7/22/2010 3:44 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2010, at 18:25 , Shane McCarron wrote:
>    
>> This is correct.  And that is consistent with RDFa Syntax 1.0.    As to the HTML5 group... I don't think they really care about triple generation and predicates.  That's our bailiwick.
>>      
> Yeah, well... but we do care. If, in future, the @rel values will be generated on-the-fly by the community and that remains valid HTML5, can we allow ourselves to ignore that?
>    

Yes.  We should.  Just like we ignore it today.  If the term is not 
defined in an ontology somewhere it is meaningless to the semweb 
anyway.  Isn't it?

>    
>>      
>>> As for ':bla' type CURIEs: I do feel uneasy about the usage of an XHTML URI for these when using RDFa in, say, SVG. Any resulting URI would really be out of place there. I would be more in favour of what the RDF Workshop people called 'weak deprecation': we do not make statements on whether that would be removed in future RDFa versions, but we strongly advise the community not to use it...
>>>
>>>        
>> I think that for consistency with RDFa Syntax 1.0 we are okay requiring the use of the XHTML vocab URI for those special form CURIEs.  I don't think it effects SVG at all.  In that environment I would expect SVG to define a host language profile along the lines described below - with TERMs that would just work in rel="svgterm".
>>      
> But if, somebody, uses a rel=":svgterm" by mistake, that would suddenly go into the XHTML namespace. Ie, we should really say to an SVG author: please, do not use that!
>    

OK.  But I think this is up to the SVG host language (SVG+RDFa or 
whatever) to say.  Its a perfectly legitimate CURIE and might make sense 
in that document.  rel=':license' would always reference our canonical 
definition of license.  That's a good thing, isn't it?

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Thursday, 22 July 2010 13:48:39 GMT

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