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

Suggestion for 10.2.1 RDFa core - mention owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty as useful documentation

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:13:06 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNgM+akmboWOgi5vSchetZHUFeiwORHDAHazR0DZAcCCnj33w@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
Outcome of the thread below, and looking at
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_guidelines
... can you expand a sentence to make it possible for exact
equivalences to be clearly documented?:

> At " If possible, vocabulary descriptions should include subproperty and
> subclass statements linking the vocabulary terms to other, well-known
> vocabularies."
> I'd suggest "subproperty, subclass and other mapping statements (eg.
> owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty)" linking".

I'd like to offer comments on the post-processing algorithm but I'm
not sure what I think about it yet! So sending this along first.

cheers,

Dan

ps. I realise I'm commenting on a (potentially volatile) editor's draft
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: 14 November 2011 16:11
Subject: Re: Draft Note for HTML WG
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG
<public-html-data-tf@w3.org>



On Nov 14, 2011, at 15:28 , Dan Brickley wrote:

> On 14 November 2011 15:05, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> I am not vehemently against adopting some OWL statements, essentially the equivalency things. Can you submit a kind of an error message to the RDFa WG on this? It would make it easier to discuss this.
>
> Sure, can you remember me what spec this is a comment on? :)
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_guidelines
> I guess...?
>

Yes

> " If possible, vocabulary descriptions should include subproperty and
> subclass statements linking the vocabulary terms to other, well-known
> vocabularies."
> I'd suggest "subproperty, subclass and other mapping statements (eg.
> owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty)" linking".
>
> However that only covers vocab publishing, not consumption. Ah, here we go:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_expansion_details
>
> I need to think about this more. This is interesting and potentially
> very useful stuff but kind of scary too, since there are environments
> (e.g. untrusted wifi LAN) where these vocabulary fetches could pull
> down malware triples, even while the source document being parsed is
> trustable. I hope the parser 'post-processing' APIs will have some
> sensible controls there, but I'm not sure what would count as
> sensible...
>
> Anyway feel free to pass along my comments re the OWL part...
>

It has more weight if you report it...:-)

Ivan


> Dan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 15:13:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT