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

Re: Another way other than @profile, @vocab or @map

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:17:29 +0000
Message-ID: <4BA39589.3020304@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 19/03/2010 14:49, Martin McEvoy wrote:
> Hello Toby,
>
> On 19/03/2010 13:47, Toby Inkster wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 12:21 +0000, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>>> @profile in this way is behaving just the same as html4 profiles..
>>>
>>> "As a globally unique name. User agents may be able to recognize the
>>> name (without actually retrieving the profile) and perform some
>>> activity based on known conventions for that profile"
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles
>>>
>>> In the case of RDFa the "known conventions" would be setting the
>>> default namespace for the document.
>> Not quite the same. "name" in the quote above can be translated as
>> "URI". So when it says:
>>
>>     "user agents may be able to recognize the name"
>>
>> it means that user agents should only be doing this for URIs that they
>> recognise. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, RDFa processors
>> would be applying the profile as a default prefix whether or not they
>> recognised the URI.
>
> Yes they would be applying the profile as a default CURIE prefix 
> whether or not they recognise it, ... hmm sounds a little unsafe..  
> but isn't that what we are suggesting with the rdfa profile proposal, 
> perhaps I am misunderstanding something ;)
>
>> I don't have anything against this general technique - but I don't think
>> it's consistent with the HTML4/XHTML1.x definition of @profile, so a
>> different attribute would need to be used.
>
> I agree (now)  best to avoid @profile and use something new, like your 
> original proposal, Im glad we discussed its uses first though.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2010Jan/0019.html 
>
>
>> A lot of the debate here has been on the syntax and model for profile
>> documents. Personally I don't think we've had enough debate on whether
>> profile documents are needed at all
>
> I agree ...
>
>>   - Martin's suggestion here is not to
>> define a profile (in the sense that we've been talking about them) at
>> all, but to just set the default CURIE prefix.
>
> Which in my mind is the simplest problem to solve ....
>
>> What exactly are the use
>> cases that show this to be insufficient? Personally, I don't think I've
>> seen any yet.
>
> :)
>
> I believe If this group can come to a decision on "how to declare the 
> default CURIE prefix" a lot of the other problems such as "prefix-less 
> tokens" and google wanting  to "bundle a bunch of existing vocabs 
> together" may have agreeable outcome to a certain extent.
>
> @vocab as new attribute name is looking pretty desirable now ;)

an example maybe, presuming google vocabs has at some time in the future 
extended their Product schema to include a Money schema...

<body vocab="http://data-vocabulary.org/">

     <div about="" typeof="Product">

    <span property="brand">ACME</span>

    <span property="category">Heavy objects</span>

    <span property="name">Large all-purpose anvil</span>

    <span property="description">

             If you need an object to drop from a height, the classic A23859 anvil from ACME is the way to go.

      </span>  Priced at only:

     <span rel="costs" typeof="Price">

             <span property="currency" content="USD">$</span>

             <span property="amount">39.99</span>

     </span>

     </div>

</body>


  ;)


It doesn't really matter what the attribute @vocab is called, im just 
using it for the purpose of the example.

Best wishes

-- 
Martin McEvoy
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 15:17:55 GMT

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