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

Re: Chat with Ivan on RDFa 1.1 Authoring features

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:53:29 +0100
Message-ID: <9178f78c1003241653s1307907dodd2de28a0a996123@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
2010/3/25 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>

> On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 16:47 -0400, Ivan Herman wrote:
> > What I said, to be more precise: if our goal is (and I think it is) to
> > simplify RDFa and bring it closer to HTML(5) authors, then we should
> > keep away from RDFS. We would shoot ourselves in the foot in the sense
> > that it would make RDFa more complex conceptually, something we do not
> > want to do... (sorry Toby:-)
>
> As I've said, I'm not suggesting that RDFa includes RDFS/OWL. (I had
> previously suggested this though.)
>
> My suggestion is that RDFa does not need to contain a profile feature -
> all it needs to do is provide a way of setting a default prefix.
>
> This would enable Google, say, to recommend publishing data like this:
>
>        <p vocab="http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/#" typeof="Person">
>          <a property="name" rel="url" href="/">Toby Inkster</a>
>        </p>
>
> i.e. as they currently do, but without prefixes.
>

Quick question:  does the @vocab proposal allow multiple occurrences with
more and less specific meaning?  The analogy I'm thinking of is @style in
CSS...


>
> The default prefix (indeed, non-default prefixes too) *may* be
> dereferenced to find an RDF schema, which might result in the consumer
> being able to infer additional triples. But that's a consideration
> orthogonal to RDFa 1.1. (After all, RDFS and OWL reasoning like that can
> already be conducted on existing RDFa 1.0 documents if the consumer
> chooses to do so.)
>
> No, this suggestion is not as powerful as RDFa profiles, but the use of
> profiles introduces fragility into RDFa documents, and I'm not convinced
> that the use cases suggested so far justify taking the risk with them.
>
> Whatsmore, I think that my suggestion leaves us room for adding profiles
> in a future version of RDFa without changing the syntax. (You'd just
> tell RDFa parsers to start performing profile processing on the URIs
> given in @vocab.) Jumping straight to profiles doesn't allow us a
> natural path back from them if they turn out to be a mistake.
>
> --
> Toby A Inkster
> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:54:03 GMT

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