Re: VOTING on the non-binding resolutions - please read and respond ASAP

Now to where I want to elaborate a little..

> 1) @instanceof is the attribute name for rdf:type

First, I do vote +1. It seems good to me, even now when seeing it in
the drafts, examples and my own usage.

But I wonder: how many are silently disagreeing with this? Is there
even time for another debate?

I consider e.g. Steven's criticism:

    <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Sep/0029.html>

Especially, the point that "[element] is *not* an instance of a
my:event" is worth considering. Not the least to me as one of my
arguments against @class was that it is defined as describing the
element itself..

But that may be the key: "is defined as". @instanceof is not defined
to type the element itself, but the current resource. Neither does
e.g. @type type the element, nor @datatype etc. But perhaps it may
seem to be a "code related" HTML attribute. Though to me the
inverse-style expression makes it both less "about the element" and
non-technical, while being precise. And it also stands out a little --
which is a good thing I believe, since it does generate a triple on
its own.

I'm really sorry if I stir things up that seemingly have settled with
little opposition. I just felt a little worried since I hope for a big
consensus (in contrast to "for lack of better suggestions..").

Best regards,
Niklas


On 9/20/07, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> In July, Mark, Ralph and I agreed on some "non-binding resolutions" [1]
> so we could move things along. The rationale was:
>
> > Why non-binding? Because we were only 3 on the call and the resolutions
> > will be best achieved by *trying* them out in actual implementations,
> > rather than theorizing on them endlessly.
>
> Now that we've tried these out in implementations and specifications,
> it's time to vote on them. Unless there's significant controversy, email
> should be enough. Please send +1 or -1 with explanation to each of the
> following points.
>
> 1) @instanceof is the attribute name for rdf:type
>
> 2) @id does *not* play a role in RDFa triple generation.
>
> 3) @rel, @rev, and @instanceof cause chaining (aka striping), whether or
> not there is @href/@resource on the element.
>
>
> As best as I can tell, all of these are in agreement with the current
> documents. The main issue *not* covered here is whether @instanceof
> applies to @resource or @about when both are present (and we'll handle
> that in a separate thread.)
>
> -Ben
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Jul/0209
>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 September 2007 13:08:42 UTC