- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:54:23 +0100
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <474D2CBF.7070602@w3.org>
Just a quick note here, to clarify the issue(s) form my understanding. As Ben emphasized in his mail, Mark's model means a change of the process model as we have it even _without_ the instanceof issue. We have to keep this in mind. My proposal was actually twofold: I would propose to stick to the model we have in the current document _and_ the @trel/@trev change (I do not care about those names, by the way, if you find better ones, I am all for it!:-) Ivan Manu Sporny wrote: > Ivan Herman wrote: >> Well, why don't we take the exact analogy and define _two_ shorthands >> for typing. Bye bye @instanceof, let us have two of these instead; for >> the time being I call them @trel and @trev (we can have happy discussion >> for the right name). The semantics is > > This approach certainly is a welcome addition to resolving this > deadlock... as it feels that we aren't really moving forward with the > current proposals. > > The core of the issue still is that we are arguing two different > approaches (Ben's and Mark's) that are largely based on authoring > preference. Both are logical approaches, each with their drawbacks, > given that everybody agrees with each respective mental model. However, > each mental model seems to be assuming too much, which is why it seems > as if we are going in circles (at least, to yours truly). > > Here are a couple of brief thoughts on Ivan's proposal: > > - This makes specifying the type an explicit action on behalf of the > user and thus there shouldn't be any sort of confusion on what the > author intended. This is a problem with both Ben and Mark's proposals. > - This approach seems to unify both Ben and Mark's models. > - Attempting to name this concept, while it might be a bit premature, > might lead to further understanding of what we're talking about. > > At the moment, we use the following attributes: > > @about, @instanceof, @rel/@rev, @property, @resource, @href, @src, > @content, and @datatype > > Of those, only @rel/@rev provide any sort of explicit bi-directional > relationship specification. If I understand Ivan correctly, his approach > would add a mechanism to explicitly specify the type of the @rel and > @rev. I'm going to call it @reltype and @revtype (sorry Ivan, I didn't > like @trel/@trev :). Personally, I'd be very happy if we stopped using > the term @instanceof :). > > If I understand all of the current positions, both Ben AND Mark's > processing rules would change to the following if we were to adopt > Ivan's proposal: > > 1) @about [set the subject] > 2) @rel [set one or more predicates] > 3) @rev [set one or more reverse predicates] > 4) @reltype [set type of the predicate's subject] > 5) @revtype [set type of the reverse predicate's subject] > 6) @property [set one or more literal-object predicates] > 7) @resource/@href/@src [set object for @rel, subj for @rev] > 8) @content [set object for @property] > 9) @datatype [set datatype of object for @property] > 10) The URI object becomes the CHAINING NODE, which becomes the > inherited subject for all contained elements. > > The above is quite clean and easier to understand from a publishers > viewpoint than the current proposals. > > In addition, the current APPROVED test cases could all be changed where > @instanceof is changed to @reltype, since Ben's @instanceof and the > current processing rules is synonymous with @reltype from Ivan's proposal. > > Did I understand all of that correctly, Ivan? > > -- manu > -- 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 Wednesday, 28 November 2007 12:37:38 UTC