W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2009

Re: an alternative for microformat-like simplicity

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:05:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4A60CB7A.7000408@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:
> I presume that you messed up the example and you wanted to use
> 'http://myvocab.org' in the second part (instead of
> 'http://ben.adida.net/vocab') right?

Yes, I messed it up, assume the vocab is always http://myvocab.org

> However, I must admit that I am not 100% sure what is being proposed in
> practice. The issue is what the requirement is on an RDFa processor.

Very little. The goal is to get simpler markup. Mark's proposal would
require a good amount of work from the RDFa processor, while I'm
proposing a much smaller amount done by the RDFa processor, and most of
the work done by the RDF store / SPARQL engine.

The overall amount of work should be pretty much the same.

> 1. A comformant RDFa processor is required to dereference the URI
> http://myvocab.org/#, extract the RDF data there,

No, definitely not proposing that :)

> 2. But, if that is _not_ the case, ie, RDFa processors are not required
> to do all that, then I do not understand what the proposal really brings
> that is not, in theory, part of the RDF/OWL infrastructure as of today.

The only change is to allow for setting a default CURIE prefix that
allows you to interpret rel="email"

> If I take your example above, using simply @xmlns (to stay with the
> current standard) I would produce with an RDFa processor
> <#me> <http://myvocab.org/#name> "Ben Adida" .
> <#me> <http://myvocab.org/#email> <mailto:ben@adida.net> .

You couldn't do it with xmlns, because then you'd have to support
xmlns="...", resetting the default namespace, and we all agree that
that's a bad idea.

> I fail to see what is new in
> this case...

Very little.. and that's the point :) Just one small tweak enables the
existing RDF/OWL toolset with a microformat-like simple RDFa syntax.

> 3. As a side issue, I fully agree with Toby. _If_ we use OWL terms, we
> should be careful what we require (although users will get it wrong...).
> owl:equivalentProperty is the right thing to do even in OWL (2) Full,
> for example and not sameAs, stuff like that...

Ok, I definitely want this to be done in the *right* OWL way, but with
the least amount of complexity possible. For example, I'd like this to
be usable with the simplest variant of OWL.

Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 19:06:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:02:03 UTC