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

Re: RDFa Profiles, terms, and predicates (oh my!)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:40:00 +0200
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6AB9D51B-86CE-46F5-9922-8F99E9569C9C@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
See my answer to Shane...

http://www.w3.org/mid/F1DFE46E-CA42-45A6-B738-BF446F26C007@w3.org

ivan
On Jul 23, 2010, at 05:56 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 07/22/2010 05:28 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> Quick follow-up.  When using the predicate 'rdfa:uri', the object
>> literal needs to be a URI.  Presumably it can be a relative URI:
>> 
>>   <p id='myTerm' about="#myTerm"><span property='rdfa:uri'
>>   content='#myTerm'><span property='rdfa:term'>myTerm</span></span></p>
>> 
>> If not... we should really say so.  If so.... we should probably say
>> that too. And make it clear what the relative URI is resolved against
>> (current base?).
> 
> I'm having a hard time remembering why we need rdfa:uri. In other words,
> why can't we just infer terms from triples that look like this in an
> RDFa Profile document:
> 
> <http://example.org/vocab#foo-term> rdfa:term "foo" .
> 
> Why do we need rdfa:uri at all? The same goes for prefix:
> 
> <http://example.org/vocab#> rdfa:prefix "ex" .
> 
> and for the default vocabulary:
> 
> <http://example.org/vocab#> rdf:type rdfa:DefaultVocabulary .
> 
> The markup is cleaner if we get rid of rdfa:uri too. We go from this:
> 
> <div about="#foo">
>   <span property="rdfa:term">foo</span> maps to
>   <span property="rdfa:uri">http://example.org/vocab#foo-term</span>
> </div>
> 
> to this (if the terms and vocabulary are in the same document):
> 
> <span about="#foo-term" property="rdfa:term">foo</span>
> 
> or this (if the terms are specified in a different document from the
> vocabulary):
> 
> <span about="http://example.org/vocab#foo-term"
>      property="rdfa:term">foo</span>
> 
> Seems to me that we shouldn't require both rdfa:term /and/ rdfa:uri to
> establish a term when just a rdfa:term would suffice for all of our use
> cases.
> 
> I think we should get rid of rdfa:uri completely - it's unnecessarily
> repetitive and complicates the markup. Added bonus is that we don't have
> to add more rules for the problem Shane is describing above.
> 
> Am I missing anything?
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: WebApp Security - A jQuery Javascript-native SSL/TLS library
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/07/20/javascript-tls-1/
> http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/07/20/javascript-tls-2/
> 


----
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







Received on Friday, 23 July 2010 08:39:42 GMT

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