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

Re: Feedback on RDFa Core 1.1

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 21:13:49 +0200
Message-ID: <m2xeb19f3361005021213r12d75471j5d71d14a92516878@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
Cc: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet
<scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> This is feedback on the RDFa 1.1 core W3C Working Draft 22 April 2010
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/
> [[[
> biblio:         http://example.org/biblio/0.1
> ]]]
> any reason for not using an existing biblio ontology such a bibo:
> @prefix bibo: <http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/> .
> and further bibo:Book which is an existing class?

Oh, I just noticed the "0.1" thing there. Dear RDFa WG, please do not
encourage any more poor souls to put version info into their namespace
URIs. Really! It's probably the single biggest irreversible mistake in
FOAF. It started out as a silly little prototype and just kept
growing, and there was never a right time to switch to a new ns URI
that didn't contain "0.1'.

Please don't encourage this practice. Instead the simplest rule for
namespace URIs is the best: "if in doubt, leave it out". Looking back,
many kick themselves for including stuff in a namespace URI, creating
maintainance baggage (and I count here things like using your personal
domain, since it puts your stuff and the ns in the same bucket
forever). I think very few have kicked themselves with regret for
leaving stuff out of a namespace URI. Particularly version numbers! So
+1 on switching to real examples like bibo: and dcterms:, ... but
regardless please drop the version number.

> [[[
>    '<span about="urn:ISBN:0091808189" typeof="biblio:book"
> ]]]
> how about using some common practice and capitalize RDF classes, e.g.
> biblio:Book?

Seconded. This might seem picky, but being able to do a first-cut
parse of RDF simply by skimming for capital letters keeps a lot of
people sane. Do please stick to those conventions...

> [[[
>  <span property="foaf:givenname">Albert</span>
> foaf:givenName
> same for _:a foaf:givenname "Albert" .
> ]]]
> s/foaf:givenname/foaf:givenName

Yup, we fixed that one late last year in FOAF (keeping the old
properties but marked as 'archaic' forms). If you can encourage the
newer spelling that would be really great!


Received on Sunday, 2 May 2010 19:14:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:47 UTC