Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type)

'type' is an existing attribute in HTML

Ivan

Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
> 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
>>

-- 

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