- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:28:44 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On 14 November 2011 15:05, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I am not vehemently against adopting some OWL statements, essentially the equivalency things. Can you submit a kind of an error message to the RDFa WG on this? It would make it easier to discuss this. Sure, can you remember me what spec this is a comment on? :) http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_guidelines I guess...? " If possible, vocabulary descriptions should include subproperty and subclass statements linking the vocabulary terms to other, well-known vocabularies." I'd suggest "subproperty, subclass and other mapping statements (eg. owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty)" linking". However that only covers vocab publishing, not consumption. Ah, here we go: http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_expansion_details I need to think about this more. This is interesting and potentially very useful stuff but kind of scary too, since there are environments (e.g. untrusted wifi LAN) where these vocabulary fetches could pull down malware triples, even while the source document being parsed is trustable. I hope the parser 'post-processing' APIs will have some sensible controls there, but I'm not sure what would count as sensible... Anyway feel free to pass along my comments re the OWL part... Dan
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 14:29:18 UTC