- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:59:41 +0000
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- CC: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Toby Inkster wrote: > On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:09:12 +0000 > Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> cool - what about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.2 >> and >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml - >> aren't the same terms mapped to (or may be mapped to) different IRIs? > > Atom (which fed into RFC 5988) maps link relations by adding this > prefix: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ > > RDFa 1.0 maps many of the same relations to: > > http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# > > RDFa 1.1 can't really differ from 1.0 - we're chartered to maintain > backwards compatibility as much as possible. However, the vocab could > use owl:equivalentProperty or rdfs:subPropertyOf to link to the IANA > URIs. > sounds like a good fix/workaround :)
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 00:00:40 UTC