- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:11:41 +0000
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, "public-rdfa-wg@w3.org" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
+cc Antoine Where are we with this? Do you still plan to add dc11 expansion into http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 ? Dan On 20 November 2012 21:37, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I am fine with this change. > > WG: process question. If we accept this change, when should we do this? We are bound by a promise not to make changes often. I would therefore propose to make this change when html5+rdfa goes to CR. Tom, this would be sometimes January-February time range. Would that be fine? > > Ivan > > > > > On Nov 20, 2012, at 16:28 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: > >> ΩOn Nov 20, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear RDFa WG, >>> >>> Currently, the prefixes "dc:" and "dcterms:" are both mapped in the RDFa >>> Initial Context to the namespace URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/ (here: >>> "/terms/") [1]. >>> >>> It has been pointed out that a considerable amount of data uses, or maps to, >>> DCMI properties with the namespace URI http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ (here: >>> "/1.1/"), which in other contexts has traditionally been mapped to the prefix >>> "dc:". >>> >>> Most of the /terms/ properties have ranges restricted to either literal or >>> non-literal values, while the /1.1/ properties are rangeless (rdfs:Resource by >>> default) -- a characteristic some users see as an advantage (see [2]). >>> >>> DCMI would like to propose to the RDFa Working Group that the prefix "dc11:" be >>> added to the Initial Context for the /1.1/ namespace URI. >> >> +1 >> >> Gregg >> >>> People who have used "dc:" for /1.1/ properties will need to explicitly declare >>> this as a prefix. However, for those who continue to use /1.1/ properties -- >>> in some cases, precisely because they are rangeless -- inclusion in the Initial >>> Context would emphasize that /1.1/ has not been forgotten or deprecated, >>> reinforce the message that /1.1/ properties should not be "upgraded" to /terms/ >>> properties in a mechanical way, and provide a conventional prefix to use for >>> the properties. >>> >>> Many thanks for your consideration, >>> Tom >>> >>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 >>> [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/FAQ/DC_and_DCTERMS_Namespaces >>> >>> -- >>> Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org> >>> Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Ltd >>> >>> >> > > > ---- > 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 Friday, 1 March 2013 16:12:08 UTC