- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:52:41 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
I agree that this was the intention. I also agree with Richard that the current language could be cleared up by using a term like 'profile graph' instead of the abstract terms I introduced. I was afraid of introducing another 'graph' reference. Finally, I have no problem with using a different mapping technique for terms vs. prefixes. The are different concepts, and since the term mapping will be far and away the the most common thing to do, it should be as easy as possible to express for the great unwashed non-RDF but semweb aspiring community out there. On 8/13/2010 9:15 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > I guess you are right about that. Whatever we decide at the end of the day, this part of the spec will have to be firmed up. The intention was certainly to say that a double assignment like the one you gave would be ignored. > > Cheers > > Ivan > > On Aug 13, 2010, at 13:54 , Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > >> On 13 Aug 2010, at 12:43, Ivan Herman wrote: >> >>>> So if you apply OWL reasoning to the profile document, you get: >>>> >>>> <http://www.ex.org/vocab/1.0/MyTerm> rdfa:term "exampleTerm" . >>>> <http://www.ex.org/vocab/2.0/MyTerm> rdfa:term "exampleTerm" . >>>> >>>> This just means the profile author has established a mapping of the same term to two different URIs. I suppose the RDFa draft already specifies how to handle profiles like that? I read the document but couldn't tell -- this needs to be tightened up in the document IMO, and that should then take care of the owl:sameAs issue. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Unless we can, somehow, formally _restrict_ the effect of an rdfa:term predicate on a specific graph somehow (that may be a possibility but I am not 100% sure how to do that, but maybe we can), this may create the same type of issues as the ones Toby is referring to. >>>>> >>>> You say it “may create the same type of isses”. Well, does it or does it not? If it does, example please. If not, let's move on. >>>> >>> For the current setup it does. Section 9 says >>> >>> [[[ >>> If one of the objects is not a Literal or if there are additional rdfa:uri or rdfa:term predicates sharing the same subject, no mapping is created. >>> ]]] >>> >>> which, if we translated to the new setup, would mean that both triples would be ignored, ie, no term mapping would be done. >>> >> Well, the current text says that this would be ignored: >> >> _:mapping rdfa:uri "...uri1"; rdfa:uri "...uri2"; rdfa:term "term" . >> >> because there are two different rdfa:uri values for the same subject. But the following *does* establish a “conflicting” mapping and is not ignored, because the subjects are different: >> >> _:mapping1 rdfa:uri "...uri1"; rdfa:term "term" . >> _:mapping2 rdfa:uri "...uri2"; rdfa:term "term" . >> >> So I believe the current draft isn't really clear about how to handle the case of mapping one term to two different URIs. >> >> Richard >> >> > > ---- > 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 > > > > > > -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Friday, 13 August 2010 14:53:31 UTC