- From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:12:09 -0800
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
On 3/9/10 1:01 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > If we forget about the 'how we do it' for a moment, I think having a > mechanism to put the zillions of xmlns: statement into one place and > replacing it with one reference is important. I disagree, because (1) there are hardly going to be zillions of xmlns statements, (2) if you're simplifying the author's life but leaving prefixes in there, the author still needs to be acutely aware of the idea of combining vocabularies, scoping terms, etc... so I think we're not really making the average author's life any easier. (3) the major use case to tackle, I think, is Google's, where they basically redefined a vocabulary and made the prefix as unintrusive as possible: 'v'. I suspect they'd rather get rid of the prefix altogether. > Would we require the vocabulary publishers to publish > separate RDFa vocabulary files to publish separate keywords URI-s, too, > beyond the RDF files they already publish? This simply does not scale > for vocabularies that may hundred or more terms... I don't understand what you mean. If, as a publisher, I want to use 5 terms from DC, 3 terms from FOAF, and 2 terms from CC, I would put together a vocab with keywords that point to those 10 terms, and use those keywords. That's a little bit more work up front to pinpoint the terms I want to use, but it's a lot less work in each actual HTML file, which is exactly the trade-off we want, right? We want some people defining easy-to-reuse vocabs, and many people just using them. Putting it another way: a mechanism that lets you bulk declare prefixes does nothing to simplify the author's required understanding of RDFa, it's just a syntactic sugar for many @xmlns's. I think that buys us very little. On the other hand, a mechanism to let you define your own keywords means *significantly* less stuff to understand for the user of that vocabulary, so that certainly fulfills the goal of simplifying authoring work. -Ben
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 17:12:38 UTC