- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:11:57 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
On Nov 14, 2011, at 15:28 , Dan Brickley wrote: > 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...? > Yes > " 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... > It has more weight if you report it...:-) Ivan > Dan ---- 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 Monday, 14 November 2011 15:09:34 UTC