- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 10:56:34 +0200
- To: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- CC: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <46A078C2.8050706@w3.org>
If so... 'category' maybe the closest to what we mean... Ivan Steven Pemberton wrote: > > I think there are only 3 reasons why I think 'instanceof' is a bad choice: > > 1. Multiword, which I already spoke of. > 2. instance has another meaning in some existing and future XHTML > documents. > 3. It comes over as rdf-speak. Up to now we have done our best to avoid > exposing RDF terminology to the XHTML author; no subject, predicate, > object and so on, just existing HTML concepts where possible. > Unfortuantely, most of the synonyms have already been taken (class, > type, role), but I still think we should try and find something that > reads better than 'instanceof' or 'isa'. > > /me runs a thesaurus > > sort > kind > category > realm > > depict > portray > represent > embody > > like > > Steven > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:25:48 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote: > >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> In today's telecon, we proposed and resolved to use a *new* attribute, >> rather than @class or @role, for the rdf:type syntactic sugar. Thus, >> @class and @role do not currently result in any triples being generated, >> although one may consider that they will in a future version. >> >> The question, then, is which attribute to use. Steven expressed >> reservations about two-word attributes like "isa" or "instanceof", and >> instead proposed: denotes, depicts, represents, category, ilk, kind. >> >> Other thoughts? >> >> I'm partial to "instanceof" and "kind", and I have no additional >> suggestions. >> >> -Ben >> > > > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 08:56:43 UTC