- From: KANZAKI Masahide <mkanzaki@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:52:12 +0900
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: RDFa mailing list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
Hi, I wonder it's not very good idea to use RDF in order to map shorthand names to global terms, because it will add useless annotations to the terms. For example, if http://example.org/vocab contains a triple <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name" . then this will add an extra description to FOAF vocabulary. Of course anyone can say anything on the Web, but probably it's not a good practice to tweak someone else's vocabulary on the global space, IMHO. I guess some local mapping mechanisms, e.g. JSON, would be better in this case, and might be easier to process ? 2010/1/13 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>: >> I wonder whether we should not restrict ourselves to RDFa as an accepted >> format. Implementations still have to, sort of, recursively call >> themselves to interpret vocabulary files, but at least no further parser >> is necessary. > > Right, I agree that the document should be marked up in RDFa. The only > reason the text isn't more specific about XHTML+RDFa or HTML+RDFa was > because we may want to serve SVG+RDFa or ODF+RDFa from that URL via > content negotiation. > > I'll try and put some language in there that makes it more clear that > the RDFa Vocabulary document should be marked up in RDFa. -- @prefix : <http://www.kanzaki.com/ns/sig#> . <> :from [:name "KANZAKI Masahide"; :nick "masaka"; :email "mkanzaki@gmail.com"].
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2010 09:52:44 UTC