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

Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile

From: Markus Gylling <markus.gylling@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:23:37 +0200
Message-Id: <8FF1131D-D3CB-45F5-AA9A-399A607B7088@gmail.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
I am (obviously) supporting this too. DAISY is one application domain where this feature applies:
* we produce groups of documents that have tight information nature scopes; all of the groups having one logical default vocabulary
* for these documents, we want to take all prefix declarations out of the document instances themselves to reduce risk for error
* for these documents, RDFa profile documents are sometimes even normatively defined by a specification, effectively hardcoding which vocabs (inc the default) may be used in the instances (and consequently the prefixes that must be used for them)
* ergo, absence of the ability to define a default vocab in profile documents would negatively impact the approach described above (since all our document groups have a default vocabulary).

To us, profile documents (inc the ability to define default vocabs) is probably the most desired new feature in RDFa 1.1. I would expect that this ability to centralize declarations in profile documents will prove popular in other application contexts too, where simplicity and predictability (and possibly, vocabulary usage limitations) are deemed as important aspects. The ability to specify defaultness completes the picture.

hth, /markus

On Jul 23, 2010, at 10:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> I do not have a problem with it.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 19:05 , Shane McCarron wrote:
> 
>> Earlier today we sorted out a solution for Issue 24 - case insensitive TERMs.  Part of that solution is permitting host languages to define default TERMs and prefix mappings via a default RDFa Profile.
>> 
>> The RDFa Core specification already also permits host languages to define a 'default vocabulary'.  In other words, a default value for @vocab to be used with CURIEs with no prefix are used (e.g., property='shanesFavoriteProperty').  For completeness, I think we should extend the definition of RDFa Profile to allow a declaration of a default vocabulary.  This would involve the following changes:
>> 
>>  * Define the term 'rdfa:vocabulary' in our term collection, and
>>    rules for it in Section 9.
>>  * Swap steps 2 and 3 in the processing sequence so that @profile is
>>    evaluated before @vocab.
>> 
>> Note that I do NOT think that either XHTML+RDFa nor HTML+RDFa should define a default vocabulary.  This facility is there for other, future host languages.
>> 
>> Comments?  Objections?
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 10:24:11 GMT

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