W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > March 2013

Re: Prefix for http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ in RDFa Initial Context?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 16:11:41 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFrKnE+mKPHcUkXTwhHx=3bzvhT0KQsVWXMtfG+ETyrBgA@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:19:58 UTC