Re: RDFa Vocabularies

That is actually a good point... But it is also a matter of how the RDF
vocabulary is used. Ie, you are right that having an RDF statement of
the sort

<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name"

is not a good idea. But having something like

[
   a rdfa:Term ;
   rdfa:uri "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" ;
   rdfa:term "name"
]

would be o.k...

I regard the Json encoding as a somewhat issue.

Ivan

On 2010-1-13 10:52 , KANZAKI Masahide wrote:
> 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.
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF   : http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
vCard  : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf