W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2010

[public-rdfa-wg] <none>

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:24:06 +0100
Message-ID: <bd11e07b6857681b4c1d25e21df964b0.squirrel@goddamn.co.uk>
To: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 07:40:04 +0200
Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> 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).

FWIW, I agree with your reasoning for the current vocab. Prefix and term
mappings are semantically a relationship between two strings.

Imagine this:

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

Now, the following is also true (probably):

	  a owl:Ontology ;
	  owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)> .

Thus it follows that:

	  rdfa:prefix "foaf" .

Thus an RDFa processor could expand 'foaf:name' to:


Which we wouldn't want to happen.

In RDF terms, when we're defining prefixes and terms we're not
describing the underlying resources - we're just talking about
the xsd:strings. We're not even talking about xsd:anyURIs, because
say, "htt" is a valid expansion for a prefix, which might be used
as follows:

	prefix="h: htt"

So I'd recommend keeping the current pattern, though I think the
range of rdfa:uri should be changed to xsd:string for the above

Another argument against switching to

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

would be the fact that you'd lose the owl:FunctionalProperty-ness of
rdfa:prefix and rdfa:term.

Toby A Inkster
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 09:24:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:20 UTC