- From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:15:53 +0200
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "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>
Again: Why do we refuse naming it 'type'? Because it is to RDFish? (BTW, we're doing *R*D*F*a) Or are there any (X)HTML (2) issues, I might have missed? Cheers, Michael ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hausenblas, MSc. Institute of Information Systems & Information Management JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH http://www.joanneum.at/iis/ ---------------------------------------------------------- >-----Original Message----- >From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org >[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman >Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:57 AM >To: Steven Pemberton >Cc: Ben Adida; RDFa; SWD WG >Subject: Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] >ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) > >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 09:13:54 UTC