W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-powderwg@w3.org > December 2008

Re: [POWDER] About describedby

From: Andrea Perego <andrea.perego@uninsubria.it>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:20:39 +0100
Message-ID: <c730b1640812050620p38939a30x7df7a4da816987d5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Phil Archer" <phil@philarcher.org>
Cc: "Public POWDER" <public-powderwg@w3.org>

Thanks for having clarified this issue, Phil.

I don't see any major drawback in dropping the range specification in

So, unless anybody disagress, I'll update the POWDER-S voc accordingly.


On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org> wrote:
> Thanks for this Andrea - it gives me a chance to set things out clearly
> (which I should have done for yesterday's telecon).
> Andrea Perego wrote:
>> Hi, Phil.
>> Could you please remind me why we should drop the range specification
>> for describedby? Is it about using it in ATOM?
> No, it's not related to it being used for ATOM as such. In my original
> e-mail to IANA, included in the mail at [1], it says:
> "The relationship A 'describedby' B does not imply that B is a POWDER file
> (the MIME type does that), simply that B provides a description of A. The
> representation returned from A and B is not constrained by the
> relationship."
> Following feedback from Julian Reschke (and a chat on the phone with him)
> I've proposed some amendments to the DR doc reported to the group at [2]
> with the relevant changes visible temporarily at [3]. It looks like a big
> re-write of that section on linkage but it isn't. All I've done is to
> re-order the sections a little and shown how link @rel elements can be used
> in ATOM. However, when the wdrs:describedby property is introduced [4] I've
> suggested that we say:
> The meaning of wdrs:describedby is identical to the describedby relationship
> type defined above so that:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby
> and
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/describedby
> For this to be true, bearing in mind the requested registration of
> describedby, we need to drop the range constraint.
> The upside of doing this is that we keep the @rel type and the RDF
> vocabulary term consistent with each other. In the RDFa example (now
> numbered 4-3) the type attribute is still there to hint that the target of
> the link is a POWDER document. The downside is that this is not true for the
> second RDFa example, now numbered 4-4.
> Given all that - do you agree that we can drop the range constraint? If not,
> then I can only suggest that we should define a different, POWDER-specific,
> vocabulary term for use in RDFa - but then I fear that might be confusing
> since RDFa allows @rel types [5] and it's going to get messy.
> Phil.
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Nov/0016.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2008Nov/0021.html
> [3] http://philarcher.org/powder/20081124.html#assoc
> [4] http://philarcher.org/powder/20081124.html#semlink
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#rdfa-attributes
> --
> Phil Archer
> w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Friday, 5 December 2008 14:21:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:48:42 UTC