- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:24:06 +0100
- 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): <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/> a owl:Ontology ; owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)> . Thus it follows that: <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)> rdfa:prefix "foaf" . Thus an RDFa processor could expand 'foaf:name' to: <http://dbpedia.org/resource/FOAF_(software)name> 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" property="h:p://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" 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 reason. 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 <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 09:24:42 UTC