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

Re: Proposal for ISSUE-11: Default prefix declarations

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:36:46 -0500
Message-ID: <4B8F2ACE.7000909@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 03/03/2010 12:46 PM, Mark Birbeck wrote:
> The more I think about it, the more I don't like this idea...sorry. :)
> However, sticking with the discussion in its own terms for now, can I
> suggest that we discuss this as a default profile, rather than a
> default set of URI mappings? (I realise that this somewhat depends on
> the @profile proposal, but I think that's reasonable, at least whilst
> we're still in the design phase.)

I had a very interesting discussion with Tom Baker earlier this week. He
and Ralph had expressed concerns about the default prefix mappings and
during the course of the discussion, we more or less arrived at the same
conclusion as you outlined in your replies to ISSUE-11. So, I think that
speaks well for this direction, pending WG approval, of course.

I've also asked the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) to respond to
the idea of default prefixes, default profiles, @profile everywhere, and
the general direction of RDFa in HTML. They may bundle this with an
analysis of Microdata in HTML as well to compare and contrast the two
technologies when used to embed Dublin Core metadata in documents.

DCMI is probably also going to ask us for direction when marking up the
Dublin Core vocabularies using RDFa in the future. They want to provide
human-readable documents that express the Dublin Core vocabularies in
RDFa when content negotiation results in an HTML family document.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: PaySwarming Goes Open Source
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2010 03:37:14 UTC

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