Namespace (was: Re: Preparing editor's drafts -- Q's for the team contacts)

On 25 May 2011, at 11:58, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 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 
> 
> http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa
> 
> has been set up.

This is the approach I had in mind.

> 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).

Well, and perhaps a simple HTML reference document can be generated from the RDF and served at the namespace as well via conneg? This would fulfill my requirement that the namespace should have a human-readable view as well.

Note that I don't see that working for the rdf: namespace because its definitions are scattered over several documents and the terms are not presented in a way that would facilitate the extraction of, for example, useful rdfs:comments.

> 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...

I share the concern about duplication of information. But RDFS needs both a narrative specification document and a term-by-term reference. My experience from other vocabularies is that it can be hard to satisfy both needs with a single document. OTOH I trust the experience of the RDFS editor in these matters :-)

Best,
Richard

Received on Wednesday, 25 May 2011 11:17:01 UTC