W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2011

Re: Preparing editor's drafts -- Q's for the team contacts

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:58:09 +0200
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C9A9F1E8-A7AB-4692-B869-FFF644BB786B@w3.org>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Ok, I understand. But it is not 100% clear what this would mean. From where I stand, I would opt for the creation of an HTML5+RDFa file, with a (probably off-line generated) RDF/XML and Turtle versions. This can be set up via content negotiations. This is the way 


has been set up. But we should realize that in view of the size of the vocabulary, this is a non-trivial amount of work.

Another possibility is to mark up the RDF Schema document[1] with RDFa right from the start so that we could extract the RDF/XML or Turtle automatically by some RDFa tools (my distiller can do that without problem). There are some wizardy to be done to set up the content negotiations properly, (or we can ask the system team to put some symbolic links to our system).

I am really in favour of the latter, ie, to use RDFa as part of the Schema document. If we have to have a separate document in the namespace, we are bound to introduce errors...


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/

On May 25, 2011, at 12:43 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:

> On 25 May 2011, at 10:05, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> We also need to think about managing / evolving the (currently
>>> CVS-archived) namespace documents for RDF and RDFS.
>> I would expect those to stay in CVS space and we will just update those. Eric, Sandro or I can update them at any time if needed.
>> 'If needed' is the key here: unless we add new terms (eg, a new datatype...) then those files should be o.k., though I would probably produce a turtle version for both
> I'm strongly in favour of putting some proper content-negotiated human- and machine-readable documents at the rdf: and rdfs: namespace URIs. To be honest, it's quite a disgrace that W3C is ignoring its own best-practice advice [1] and still publishing RDF like it's 1999...
> This is already raised as ISSUE-39 [2].
> Given that this is issue is cutting across specs, it might make sense to appoint a WG member to own this issue. Sort of an “Editor of Authoritative Representations”, in the HTTP sense...
> Best,
> Richard
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-vocab-pub/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/39

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
Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 10:56:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:07 UTC