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 16:53:03 +0000
Message-ID: <4BA3ABEF.9060408@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hello again Shane...

On 19/03/2010 16:13, Shane McCarron wrote:
> Thoughts below:
>
> Martin McEvoy wrote:
>>
>>
>> there is a flaw in with the above approach of course, which I guess 
>> is why the whole discussion of  RDFa profile's as a method of 
>> declaring prefix-less tokens.
>>
>> example:
>>
>> <body vocab="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#">
>>
>> <div typeof="VCard" about="">
>>
>> <div property="fn">Fred</div>
>>
>> <a rel="url me" href="http://fred.example.com/">Home</a>
>>
>> </div>
>>
>> </body>
>>
>>
>> the @rel value "me" is not a part of the vcard vocabulary, the parser 
>> doesnt know that, How can a RDFa parser tell the difference between a 
>> "qualified name" and some other name not included in the vocab?
>
> I don't really feel this is an issue.

OK ..

> If you want to validate it, you *could* retrieve the document and look 
> for keyword definitions in the default graph (following your nose to 
> other referenced vocabularies if needed), 

You could indeed,

> but who cares?  Seriously. 

If you believe people don't care ... then who am I to disagree :)

> This is no different than saying @rel="foo:bar".  Who is to say there 
> is a term 'bar' within 'foo'?  Well, I did.  Just now.  When I 
> referenced it.  Today we provide some level of checking to ensure that 
> our predefined keywords are used and others are not.  I feel it would 
> be fine to loosen the rules on parsers when you have changed the 
> default vocabulary.  In that instance, we trust the author to use 
> terms but permit 'validating parsers' to attempt to do further 
> validation and throw exceptions of they choose.  This is the same 
> thing XML does for its parsing rules.
>

I think there is much more to be gained in using @vocab  than worrying 
too much about false positives and whether people care enough.


Best wishes.

-- 
Martin McEvoy
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 16:53:28 GMT

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