Re: Microdata to RDF: First Editor's Draft (ACTION-6)

On Oct 14, 2011, at 1:53 AM, "Philip Jägenstedt" <philipj@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:26:43 +0200, Gregg Kellogg  
> <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com> wrote:
> 
>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/htmldata/raw-file/24af1cde0da1/microdata-rdf/index.html

> 
> "Otherwise, construct predicate from type by removing everything following  
> the last SOLIDUS U+002F ("/") or NUMBER SIGN U+0023 ("#") in type and  
> append name."
> 
> The identifier in itemtype happens to be a URL, but it really is supposed  
> to be an opaque identifier, so this stands in direct conflict with the  
> following:
> 
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:30:57 +0200, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Note that the property "name" in the vocabulary  
>> "http://example.org/feline"
>> and the property "http://example.org/feline#name" have absolutely not
>> relationship in microdata. They are different properties and cannot be
>> mechanically considered to be equivalent in any way. Any use of microdata
>> that claims that a full URL property name is the same property as a short
>> name in a specific vocabulary is wrong. It's two properties. They might
>> have the same semantics and can be used as equivalent, but they are
>> different properties and any specification that defines or uses both  
>> would
>> need to define how to handle clashes.

This convention is compatible with most use of properties in RDF that I'm aware of. We'll document that it is at odds with this alternate interpretation.

The case of generating RDF is what sets this spec apart. If a processor is trying to get RDF, them
N it is likely for the purpose of using an RDF/SPARQL toolset which will be interpreting WRT RDF vocabularies.

Gregg

> This kind of mapping can only really be done on a vocabulary-specific  
> basis, for vocabularies that define both forms to be equivalent.
> 
> -- 
> Philip Jägenstedt
> Core Developer
> Opera Software
>

Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 14:52:02 UTC