- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:36:55 +0200
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: "Richard Cyganiak" <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <3AD248A3-772A-4BBA-857A-CDD8E2049391@w3.org>
Yeah. If we had a standard way of talking about graphs (you know, there is that n...d graph concept whose name I am not sure we know:-) than we could of course talk about triples that are restricted to that profile file (if the semantics of those animals are defined in a way that sameAs does not mean automatic membership for other triples, which is one of the issue with reification...). But, well, alas!, sigh... Ivan On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:24 , Toby Inkster wrote: > 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> > > ---- 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 Thursday, 12 August 2010 10:35:38 UTC