- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:06:01 +0100
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>, W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B968E09.6020602@w3.org>
Ben, I am actually not sure what we are arguing about.... If you think that you have to convince me about the necessity of keyword mapping and definitions, then don't:-) I know it is important... You argued against having any mechanism of having a prefix mapping altogether, and I think that is where we have a disagreement: I think prefix mapping is important, _too_. Maybe it is a matter of perception, ie, communities. Indeed, you say: [[[ 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. ]]] and I do not dispute that: yes, it is only syntactic sugar. But a very important one for many. Let us not forget that many authors of RDFa come from the RDF world, for them using different namespaces is the most natural thing of the world, but they are still pissed by the many prefixes they have to declare (and I am one of them!:-). For example, W3C could also publish one vocabulary file where it can put all the standard prefixes for rdf, rdfs, xsd, owl, skos, etc, together, and people would not have to look those up all the time. I could add my own collection of vocabularies, including those listed, plus foaf, dc, sioc, cc, you-name-it, to make my life easier. Syntactic sugar, yes, but an important one. And, to be frank: I do not see any problem in adding this sugar, if it can sweeten some authors' life... The only thing this discussion convinced me: even if it is technically possible to 'merge' the two mechanisms into one, maybe we should not do that, just to avoid screwing up people. I have outlined, in my previous mail, how the current document could be changed in keeping things separate, and I am happy to work it out in the document if I get a 'mandate' to do so... Cheers Ivan On 2010-3-9 18:12 , Ben Adida wrote: > 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 -- 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 vCard : http://www.ivan-herman.net/HermanIvan.vcf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Tuesday, 9 March 2010 18:05:41 UTC