W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > September 2006

Re: "role" and inheriting "about"

From: Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:05:09 +0900
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060911162948.5665.FUKUSHIGE.YOSHIO@jp.panasonic.com>

Thank you, Ben, for your reply.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:45:09 -0400
Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:

> Yes, though you should think of ROLE as just a way of declaring a type
> on that HTML element. Though, as Elias mentions below, this is *not*
> finalized yet.

Should @role be a way of declaring a type of a HTML ELEMENT,
not a way of declaring a new resource?

Hmm.

> > From the primer, I'd assume that this is the intended case.
> 
> Note that the primer uses META. So no, we did not intend to imply that
> role would change the subject inheritance. We should make that clearer,
> though.

So, although the Primer says in the 3rd paragraph of 2.2 Publishing An Event
(excluding the examples):

[[[then Jo declares a new event
(example code)\
then, inside this event declaration, Jo can set up the event fields, ...]]]
,

the @role doesn't actually introduce a resource by itself.

Is this what you mean?

Then I can understand that @role should not block the inheritance,
although the text in 2.2 may need to be changed and I got unsure about 
the reason we need @roles...

> >> To me, it sounds more natural for the search to stop
> >> when a "role" is found on its way.
> 
> The problem I see with this is that it doesn't scale well to other use
> cases. It seems to work because ROLE is new and has no other uses right
> now. However, we're currently talking about how ROLE is not really the
> right way to declare a type: CLASS is probably better. This is
> particularly true when RDFa is made to work with XHTML1, where ROLE does
> not exist.

Yes, it embarrasses me a lot(who is a validation addict ;-))

> But then, you don't want CLASS to change the inheritance rule every
> time, right? It's best if there's an explicit way to change the subject,
> using the ABOUT attribute, for example.

Indeed.

I further do not want for @class to do any function in RDFa.


I've used many @class'es for declaring the semantic classes (or functions ) 
in the document, of the document fragments being described.

e.g. 
<div class="section">
<h2>Next BBQ Party</h2>
 ...
</div>
( What I want to talk about is the next BBQ party, not the section itself )

I can embed the same triples without using @class'es,
by using (@about and) link with @rel="rdf:type" as in Elias's example, right?

> Please continue to ask these questions, as it helps us understand what
> we didn't explain well, and also makes us think even more carefully
> about the design decisions made along the way.

Thank you for saying so.

I'd be happy if I could help you by providing "unintended readings" ;-)

Yoshio
fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com

-- 
Yoshio Fukushige <fukushige.yoshio@jp.panasonic.com>
Network Development Center,
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 10:04:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:53 UTC