- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:42:26 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
- Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <4147DEF8-E665-4CA6-8054-5555C8541852@w3.org>
(oops, resending for tracker: ISSUE-39. Sorry for the confusion.) On Aug 6, 2010, at 07:40 , Ivan Herman wrote: > Hi Richard, > > (I am still on vacations, so I may not answer to your possible answer quickly, but I will become more active next week...) > > This was discussed several times on the mailing list and I fully understand your issues. Here is the reason I was in favour of the current setup, but I am absolutely open to discussion because, well, it does complicate processing (speaking as an implementer). > > The issue I have is that a statement like > > <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name" . > > is a statement on a resource with a specific URI. And I see two issues with that, modeling wise: > > - the goal of the @profile file is _not_ to make statements on resources but to make statements on strings, ie, the way RDFa processors should manipulate strings that are then converted into URI-s > - while you may make the statement above in your @profile file, I may say in mine > > <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "blabla" . > > These are both RDF statements in RDFa files somewhere so, eg, Sindice is perfectly licensed to collect both. Ie, Sindice will suddenly produce a proliferation of statements on the > > <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> > > resource which are definitely not intended and are meaningless for foaf... > > These were my modeling fears that led me to the current proposal, in spite of being more awkward. > > Try to convince me that I am wrong! Please:-) > > Cheers > > Ivan > > (As an aside, if we had literals as subjects that we could use those instead of the URI Resource, but that opens a whole lot of other issues:-) > > On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:53 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > >> Hello RDFa WG members, >> >> This is a comment on Profiles in the latest RDFa WD [1]. The draft provides a mechanism for establishing term mappings using RDF triples of the following general shape: >> >> ?x rdfa:term "name" . >> ?x rdfa:uri "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" . >> >> I ask that the mechanism be changed to the following form: >> >> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name" . >> >> This change should be made for the following reasons: >> >> 1. Conciseness. If one triple is enough to say it, there should be one triple. >> >> 2. Putting URIs into RDF literals is almost always an anti-pattern. >> >> 3. The principle of least surprise. >> >> 4. Using a URI simplifies the creation of self-contained profiles that contain a set of term mappings along with labels for the classes and properties, mappings to other vocabularies, presentation hints etc. >> >> 5. Using a URI simplifies the extension of existing RDF Schema documents (e.g., the RDF version of the FOAF spec) to RDFa profiles. >> >> Best, >> Richard >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100803/ >> >> >> > > > ---- > 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 > > > > > ---- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 05:41:25 UTC