W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-61: Does the RDFa API need a vocabulary helper

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 10:05:30 +0100
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <53DA2F47-8D7F-4320-B389-00B8689FA54B@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
I think what you describe below is fine with me. And, I presume, if I use an RDFa API, and I am an RDF geek, then I also have the RDF API at my disposal underneath, so I can also choose to use that approach, right?

Ivan

On Jan 13, 2011, at 05:27 , Manu Sporny wrote:

> On 01/03/2011 12:42 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> For example, the following is possible when using the RDF API:
>>> 
>>> var rdf = document.data.rdf; rdf.prefixes.foaf =
>>> "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"; var foafname =
>>> rdf.resolve("foaf:name"); // at this point, foafname ==
>>> "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name"
>>> 
>>> Given the code above, the following is also possible using the RDF
>>> API:
>>> 
>>> var short = rdf.prefixes.shrink(foafname); // at this point short
>>> == "foaf:name"
>> 
>> The direct counterpart of the original issue/proposal would be to
>> have a definition of prefixes so that I could also say
>> 
>> var foafname = rdf.prefixes.foaf('name')
>> 
>> Ie, once I have defined the prefix I would not have to repeat it
>> verbatim because it becomes a function of its own right.
> 
> Hmm, this is an interesting twist on what's in the spec right now and
> may address your request below, Ivan.
> 
> I haven't tried this out, so there may be something preventing us from
> doing this in JavaScript, but basically, we'd change the PrefixMap
> interface from this:
> 
> omittable getter DOMString get(in DOMString prefix);
> omittable setter void set(in DOMString prefix, in DOMString iri);
> 
> to this (note the change in return type for get()):
> 
> omittable getter PrefixResolver get(in DOMString prefix);
> omittable setter void set(in DOMString prefix, in DOMString iri);
> 
> [Callback]
> interface PrefixResolver
> {
>   DOMString resolve(in DOMString prefix);
> }
> 
> Internally, the setter for the PrefixMap would create a new function
> object and set an attribute named to the value of the 'prefix' argument
> passed into the set() method in the PrefixMap. For example:
> 
> rdf.prefixes.foaf = "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/";
> var foafname = rdf.prefixes.foaf("name");
> 
> foafname would be "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" at this point.
> 
> or one could even do:
> 
> rdf.prefixes.foaf = "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/";
> var foaf = rdf.prefixes.foaf;
> var foafname = foaf("name");
> 
> foafname would be "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" at this point.
> 
> This would allow you to change foaf to be something else, but enclose
> the current 'foaf' PrefixResolver function in a closure and keep it for
> as long as one needs it.
> 
>> I must admit I am not convinced about the 'confusion' argument. I
>> understand that, mainly for RDFa developers having only a method that
>> always uses the full CURIE (ie, 'foaf:name') is more understandable.
>> But, for RDF developers, I would find a coding pattern of the form
>> foaf('name') much more intuitive.
> 
> I'd rather have something that is consistent across both the RDF API and
> RDFa API. If someone is using "foaf:name" in the RDFa API, it'll be
> jarring to not have that mechanism available to them in the RDF API. The
> same goes for foaf("name") - if that's what they use in the RDF API, why
> do they have to use "foaf:name" in the RDFa API? Shouldn't the mechanism
> be the same across both APIs? That's partly what I mean by "confusion".
> 
> That said, it may not harm us to provide both mechanisms (as outlined
> above via the PrefixResolver interface) and let the developer decide
> which one they'd like to use. This may require us to support something
> like this in the RDFa API:
> 
> var foaf = document.data.createResolver("foaf",
>                                        "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/");
> var foafname = foaf("name");
> 
> Assuming that the PrefixResolver approach is technically possible, would
> only modifying the RDF API address your concern Ivan? Or would you want
> there to be this foaf("name") mechanism in both the RDFa API and RDF API?
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Linked Data in JSON
> http://digitalbazaar.com/2010/10/30/json-ld/


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf







Received on Thursday, 13 January 2011 09:06:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:08 GMT