Re: attempting to merge the 'vocab' and 'profile' documents

Flame.  Seriously.  

This isn't a feature hundreds of people will use to create vocabs... but millions will use those vocabs. And the easier it is the better.

Manu and I proposed this years ago.  Its important to be able to define collections like this to ease the burden on authors.  Especially the great unwashed out there who only want to add a license or link to an article. 

"Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net> wrote:

>On 3/7/10 1:52 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
>>
>> Hm, this is not what I feel is happening. The processor is working on
>> some non-RDF data (XHTML+RDFa file) and, the 'vocab' graph directs this
>> processor on how to generate that 'target' draft.
>
>I *think* I see what you're saying Ivan, and if so I think I lean in 
>your direction.
>
>Allow me to raise one issue that I believe is related and that I don't 
>think has been raised yet. Given my non-attendance on calls, I'm going 
>to try to do this rarely, so I'm raising this now because I think it may 
>be quite important.
>
>*** Should we really allow the @vocab/@profile document to define 
>*prefixes*, rather than just keywords? ***
>
>In other words, no doubt we want this:
>
>   <div profile="http://astrology.org/vocab#">
>     <span property="sign">Pisces</span>
>   </div>
>
>But do we really want this:
>
>   <div profile="http://astrology.org/vocab#">
>     <span property="astro:sign">Pisces</span>
>   </div>
>
>which feels odd because now we're saying that RDFa 1.1 markup is going 
>to regularly throw CURIE resolution errors with an RDFa 1.0 parser.
>
>I understand that, from Mark's point of view and implementation 
>proposal, there's no difference between defining a prefix and defining a 
>keyword, but I'm not sure that's natural to most people: it requires 
>buying into the idea that property="foo" means a "foo" *prefix* and no 
>suffix, rather than an empty prefix and a "foo" suffix, which is the 
>*much* more natural way to interpret how xmlns is typically handled. And 
>it now means that @xmlns in RDFa, rather than being a simple 
>augmentation of @xmlns in RDF/XML, is now actually quite different.
>
>All this to say: I know we *can* build a solution where prefixes are 
>defined elsewhere... but do we want to? Do we really need to? I think if 
>we say "use xmlns if you want to use prefixes, use vocab if you want to 
>use bundles of keywords", we've got ourselves 90+% of the use cases, and 
>a lot less complexity.
>
>OK, flame me :)
>
>-Ben

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.