- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:31:12 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
- Cc: "Toby Inkster" <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <8302B137-B3F4-4A71-BB12-017CFE51B0BC@w3.org>
On Aug 12, 2010, at 14:00 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Toby, > > I was talking about term mappings, not prefix mappings. Your arguments below don't work for term mappings. > Hey Richard, I just want to understand this: did you propose to change the term mapping approach to something like: <blabla> rdfa:term "something" whereas leaving the prefix mapping the way it is now in the document? This was not really clear. Ivan > Best, > Richard > > > On 12 Aug 2010, at 10:24, 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 13:30:05 UTC