W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > March 2010

Re: rev and the costs of inverses/aliases in SPARQL

From: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:46:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4B951BC8.7080708@bristol.ac.uk>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: public-sparql-dev <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
On 08/03/10 15:00, Dan Connolly wrote:
> I just ran into this message again from an HTML 5 validator:
>
> "The rev attribute on the a element is obsolete. Use the rel attribute
> instead, with a term having the opposite meaning."

> Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away?
> Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share?

I'm not sure I have anything to add to what you said, but my experience 
bears out what you say.

We use dc:contributor to relate university staff to publications 
(broadly conceived). Every publication uses rel="dc:contributor" to 
relate the topic of the page to members of staff (added to a link to the 
staff page), and every staff page uses rev="dc:contributor" to relate 
the topic of the page to a publication.

I don't really want to repeat everything using a new relation type, and 
rearranging the page so that the contributor is the object of the 
relationship on their staff page would be painful.

The existence of rev means that the rdfa additions to the html page are 
minimal, and the relation type is uniform across the site.

Damian
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 15:47:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 March 2010 15:47:33 GMT