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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:51:53 -0600
To: Damian Steer <d.steer@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: public-sparql-dev <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1268070713.3952.6015.camel@pav.lan>
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 15:46 +0000, Damian Steer wrote:
> 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 "The rev attribute on the a element is obsolete.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.

OK. thanks.

> 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
> 


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 17:51:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 8 March 2010 17:51:59 GMT