- From: Robert Bolick <robert.bolick@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:33:08 +0000
- To: Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>
- Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>, St?phane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
+1 to alignment Thx, Tom, for the background. Useful for the national standards bodies to understand. Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Jan 2014, at 16:37, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:24:54AM -0500, Paolo Ciccarese wrote: >> He pointed out that while we are absolutely free to pick our own prefix >> definitions, we could consider of aligning them with the prefixes of the >> RDFa core context: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 >> >> In particular, that would mean to map >> dc = http://purl.org/dc/terms/ >> dc11 = http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ >> >> It seems, the DC folks recommended those prefixes to the RDFa WG because >> they want to slowly deprecate the old 1.1 elements. >> >> It is probably not crucial but, in general, I think it is probably a good >> idea to align our context with existing ones in the same ecosystem. > > +1 to align with RDFa core context > > As I recall it, the mapping of dc: to /terms/ came about because this is > what the RDFa community preferred at the time, and DCMI had no objection. > After all, they are "just prefixes"... ;-) > > This has, alas, created some confusion for those who had mapped dc: to > /elements/1.1/, though the existence of range-less and ranged properties in > parallel has been a problem since ranges were introduced in January 2008. > > DCMI "gently promotes" the ranged properties of /terms/ while avoiding the word > "deprecate" because part of the community feels that the range-less properties > may in some cases be preferable. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Baker <tom@tombaker.org> >
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 17:29:57 UTC