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 10:40:56 +0200
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2FBC32FF-2795-411E-9D29-ACCFF2438C51@w3.org>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>

On Jul 22, 2010, at 23:28 , 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?).
> 

Which is messy! I would prefer to say (and indeed, say it) that this should be an absolute URI.

ivan



> 
> On 7/22/2010 4:02 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:
>> I was working on my (implied) action item to update our vocabulary document so that it is an RDFa Profile, and I ran into something odd.  The rules for an RDFa Profile are pretty simple [1].  Shoehorning the required predicates into our existing pattern in the vocab document is a little daunting though.  I don't want to break what is already there (in case someone is depending upon it)... Here is that pattern:
>> 
>> <dt id="alternate" about="#alternate" typeof="rdf:Property">alternate</dt>
>> <dd about="#alternate" property="rdfs:comment"
>>          datatype="xsd:string"><span>alternate</span>  designates alternate
>>          versions for a resource.</dd>
>> 
>> 
>> Each term is defined that way.  All of our terms are defined within a containing bucket like this:
>> 
>> <div id="relrev-properties" about="#relrev-properties" typeof="rdf:Bag">
>> 
>> <div about="#relrev-properties" rev="rdfs:member">
>> 
>> Anyway.... our rules [1] require that in order for a term to be defined, it must be the common subject of two predicates; rdfa:term and rdfa:uri.  I completely understand why this is an attractive general case model.  I can map ANY term to ANY URI.  However, in reality, I expect that most vocabularies will be like ours - self-contained.  In other words the vocabulary document will define the term, and the URI for the term will be within that same document.  In the case above, for example, the URI for the term 'alternate' is http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#alternate.
>> 
>> With all this in mind, and in the spirit of never duplicating data needlessly in an RDFa document, I propose that we modify the RDFa Profile rules slightly.  That we say a term is defined by an 'rdfa:term' predicate.  That the term itself is the object of that predicate, and the URI is the object of an 'rdfa:uri' predicate on the same subject if one is provided.  Otherwise, the URI is the same as the subject of that predicate.
>> 
>> Questions?  Comments?
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_profiles
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
> Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
> ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
> 
> 
> 


----
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 08:40:35 GMT

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