- From: Elias Torres <elias@torrez.us>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:44:47 -0400
- To: mark.birbeck@x-port.net
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
My head is spinning. We'll never finish. :( -Elias PS. Sorry I didn't make it to the call. Crazy busy at work. On 5/31/07, Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote: > > Hi Shane, > > Fair points, all. > > So what about coming at this a different way? > > > ...I know that we don't like having people duplicate things... > > If we decide to go the route that I've been suggesting, where we have > RDFa-core and then a language-specific 'interpretation', then we could > avoid the question of attribute duplication altogether; if we consider > something to be important then it needs to go into the core attribute > list, because those are our core 'concepts'. If that feature is then > duplicated when RDFa-core is hosted by another language, it doesn't > matter, because in many ways duplicate attributes is what it's all > about; the host language 'interpretation' is all about saying, 'given > this language and this mark-up, what could we reasonably say it > means'. > > We might therefore consider that representing rdf:type is of such > fundamental usefulness that RDFa-core needs to have an attribute to do > it. That would be independent of any host language that might > additionally define one of its attributes to be a mapping for > rdf:type, just in the same way that HTML/XHTML defines @rel to be a > mapping for @property when used with @href (which is itself a mapping > for @resource). > > As you can see, what I'm getting at is that we probably need an > attribute for 'type' indication that is independent of any decision we > make about @role or @class. > > Now, I happen to disagree that we should avoid defining a mapping for > @class, but if we put a new attribute into RDFa-core to represent > rdf:type then we can fight the great 'what does class mean in HTML' > battle another day, since we'd have achieved the most important > requirement which is to have a way of marking up RSS feeds > efficiently. :) > > What do you think? And if you like the idea of putting the attribute > into RDFa-core, what shall we call it? Naming attributes...we always > seem to have a problem with that. But given that @type is bound to > clash in just about any host language, we might have to think > laterally...what about @isa, which I think is the N3 way of doing it?: > > <a> > <b about="s" isa="foaf:Person" /> > </a> > > etc. > > Also, now I think about it, in the modern RDF-world, is owl:sameAs > just as important as rdf:type? Whilst we're looking at RDFa-core, > should we also be thinking along these lines: > > <a> > <b about="[a:b]" sameAs="foaf:Person" /> > </a> > > Any thoughts from RDF bods? > > Regards, > > Mark > > -- > Mark Birbeck, formsPlayer > > mark.birbeck@x-port.net | +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 > http://www.formsPlayer.com | http://internet-apps.blogspot.com > > standards. innovation. > >
Received on Friday, 1 June 2007 00:44:52 UTC