- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:02:31 +0100
- To: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@formsPlayer.com>
- Cc: W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <47988C67.1090005@w3.org>
Mark Birbeck wrote: > Hi Ivan, > >> Hm. I have not thought of @name at all! But my recollection was that we >> would leave @name out of the RDFa picture altogether, so I am not sure >> what you refer to when you say "@name we;ll have to do what I've done >> with @rel/@rev". > > Well, the reason we devised @property was because we couldn't > generalise @name in the same way that we did with @rel and @rev. So > that gives us two issues. The first is whether this should generate a > triple or not: > > <meta name="description" content="My site" /> > > I think it would be very odd for it not to, and don't recall us ever > saying that @name should be ignored. In fact I think the view was > usually that @name is the same as @property, which raises the second > issue...why bother? In other words, should this generate a triple: > > <meta name="dc:title" content="My site" /> > Well... I do not remember the exact reasons, but I am sure at some point it was decided to completely ignore @name, I just do not remember why. I know it was decided because in the first implementation I had it was one of my 'preprocessing' steps, and I had to comment it out! (It is still there, easy to revive:-) Ivan > My view is that this should *not* generate a triple, but the first > example should. My rationale is that there is no point in polluting > the legacy space with CURIEs, or polluting the new attribute @property > with legacy values, if we don't have to. We *do* have to with @rel and > @rev, but let's keep it at that. > > >> I have no problem defining @property as CURIE and leave it at that. I >> guess my only issue is consistency: if this is what we do than the list >> of values in section 9.2.5 of the current syntax document is irrelevant >> and should be removed (as, as I said in my comment, most of section 9 >> should be removed in my view...:-) > > Yes, I agree, and on section 9, too, which I have commented on in the > other thread. > > Regards, > > Mark > -- 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 Thursday, 24 January 2008 13:02:34 UTC