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

Re: [Comment response] To Tom Baker

From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:05:28 -0400
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100604140528.GB4080@octavius>
Thank you, Ivan,

On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 09:02:54AM +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Thank you for your comment 
>      <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010May/0089.html>
> on the RDFa 1.1 drafts. 
> 
> The issues you raised are simply our mistake. Ie, there is no hidden agenda in not using 
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/ in the document, simply our own sloppiness...
> 
> The internal draft for RDFa1.1 Core uses http://purl.org/dc/terms/ everywhere now, and 
> this will be the case for the published version. 
> 
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-rdfa-wg@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether
> or not you are satisfied with the working group's response
> to your comment.

Thank you very much; I am satisfied with the working group's
response to the comment.

I should explain that my comment:

    Are there perhaps good reasons to prefer the more lightly
    specified /1.1/ namespace for use with RDFa?  If so,
    should DCMI consider making the case more explicit and
    actively promote the use of /1.1/ with RDFa?

was not intended to imply that I thought there might be a
hidden agenda.  It was a serious question.  When we assigned
ranges to properties in the /terms/ namespace, we assumed that
they were to be preferred to the rangeless /1.1/ properties.
However, we gather that some people see advantages to
rangeless properties in some situations, and I was wondering
whether simple RDFa markup might be one of those situations.
I mention this only in case anyone feels moved to comment.

That the WG has decided to use /terms/ consistently is the
answer I anticipated.

Many thanks,
Tom

-- 
Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 14:06:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:06 GMT