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

Re: attempting to merge the 'vocab' and 'profile' documents

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:35:22 -0800
Message-ID: <4B957BAA.4050304@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 3/7/10 1:52 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>
> Hm, this is not what I feel is happening. The processor is working on
> some non-RDF data (XHTML+RDFa file) and, the 'vocab' graph directs this
> processor on how to generate that 'target' draft.

I *think* I see what you're saying Ivan, and if so I think I lean in 
your direction.

Allow me to raise one issue that I believe is related and that I don't 
think has been raised yet. Given my non-attendance on calls, I'm going 
to try to do this rarely, so I'm raising this now because I think it may 
be quite important.

*** Should we really allow the @vocab/@profile document to define 
*prefixes*, rather than just keywords? ***

In other words, no doubt we want this:

   <div profile="http://astrology.org/vocab#">
     <span property="sign">Pisces</span>
   </div>

But do we really want this:

   <div profile="http://astrology.org/vocab#">
     <span property="astro:sign">Pisces</span>
   </div>

which feels odd because now we're saying that RDFa 1.1 markup is going 
to regularly throw CURIE resolution errors with an RDFa 1.0 parser.

I understand that, from Mark's point of view and implementation 
proposal, there's no difference between defining a prefix and defining a 
keyword, but I'm not sure that's natural to most people: it requires 
buying into the idea that property="foo" means a "foo" *prefix* and no 
suffix, rather than an empty prefix and a "foo" suffix, which is the 
*much* more natural way to interpret how xmlns is typically handled. And 
it now means that @xmlns in RDFa, rather than being a simple 
augmentation of @xmlns in RDF/XML, is now actually quite different.

All this to say: I know we *can* build a solution where prefixes are 
defined elsewhere... but do we want to? Do we really need to? I think if 
we say "use xmlns if you want to use prefixes, use vocab if you want to 
use bundles of keywords", we've got ourselves 90+% of the use cases, and 
a lot less complexity.

OK, flame me :)

-Ben
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 22:35:51 GMT

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