- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:46:58 -0500
- To: Ben Adida <ben@mit.edu>
- Cc: public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
On Nov 28, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Ben Adida wrote: [...] > 1) Should HTML authors be able to designate abbreviations for common > RDF namespaces, like Dublin Core? I dunno; that seems like a pretty detailed design question. I think a more relevant question is: should HTML authors be able to write Dublin Core metadata in their documents in a way that is familiar and convenient to them? Yes. (and note GRDDL implementation experience http://www.w3.org/2000/06/dc-extract/form.html ) It would be nice to have a more complete dublin core use-case, showing why it matters that they don't just write the title/author/date information in plain text. What occurs to me is doing a SPARQL query over data from a bunch of documents. > The task force believes the answer is YES. Taking into account the > requirement that hand-authoring HTML with RDF/A be reasonably doable, > it's inconceivable to require authors to fully cite the Dublin Core > namespace URI in every property of every page. Web pages would not be > maintainable without them. Customers like the IPTC wouldn't even > consider RDF/A without these abbreviations. > > 2) Should these abbreviations be able to handle all valid RDF URIs? I'm not sure what "valid RDF URI" refers to. Perhaps you mean URIs that end in non-name characters? i.e. this issue? http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent- all-uris No, I don't see a need to make a syntax for those that's convenient for HTML authors. In particular, the dublin core URIs are all of the form concat(NS, N) where NS ends with a non-name character, and N is an XML name. > The task force believes the answer is YES, again, as per the > requirement that our solution allow for maximal RDF expression. This > means QNames don't quite cut it. (Not to mention that the TAG says > QNames shouldn't be used to abbreviate URIs.) > > 3) Should this abbreviation syntax overload the QName syntax? I'm not at all sure what "overload" means here. > Well, now there's the rub. We initially thought so, and I still think > so, but there are good arguments against it, and we're currently > discussing alternative syntax. > > Which parts do you disagree with, and why? > > -Ben > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 18:47:12 UTC