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

Re: Another way other than @profile, @vocab or @map

From: Martin McEvoy <martin@weborganics.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:49:40 +0000
Message-ID: <4BA38F04.7000906@weborganics.co.uk>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hello Toby,

On 19/03/2010 13:47, Toby Inkster wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-19 at 12:21 +0000, Martin McEvoy wrote:
>> @profile in this way is behaving just the same as html4 profiles..
>> "As a globally unique name. User agents may be able to recognize the
>> name (without actually retrieving the profile) and perform some
>> activity based on known conventions for that profile"
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/global.html#profiles
>> In the case of RDFa the "known conventions" would be setting the
>> default namespace for the document.
> Not quite the same. "name" in the quote above can be translated as
> "URI". So when it says:
> 	"user agents may be able to recognize the name"
> it means that user agents should only be doing this for URIs that they
> recognise. Unless I'm misunderstanding your suggestion, RDFa processors
> would be applying the profile as a default prefix whether or not they
> recognised the URI.

Yes they would be applying the profile as a default CURIE prefix whether 
or not they recognise it, ... hmm sounds a little unsafe..  but isn't 
that what we are suggesting with the rdfa profile proposal, perhaps I am 
misunderstanding something ;)

> I don't have anything against this general technique - but I don't think
> it's consistent with the HTML4/XHTML1.x definition of @profile, so a
> different attribute would need to be used.

I agree (now)  best to avoid @profile and use something new, like your 
original proposal, Im glad we discussed its uses first though.


> A lot of the debate here has been on the syntax and model for profile
> documents. Personally I don't think we've had enough debate on whether
> profile documents are needed at all

I agree ...

>   - Martin's suggestion here is not to
> define a profile (in the sense that we've been talking about them) at
> all, but to just set the default CURIE prefix.

Which in my mind is the simplest problem to solve ....

> What exactly are the use
> cases that show this to be insufficient? Personally, I don't think I've
> seen any yet.


I believe If this group can come to a decision on "how to declare the 
default CURIE prefix" a lot of the other problems such as "prefix-less 
tokens" and google wanting  to "bundle a bunch of existing vocabs 
together" may have agreeable outcome to a certain extent.

@vocab as new attribute name is looking pretty desirable now ;)

Best wishes.

Martin McEvoy
Received on Friday, 19 March 2010 14:50:06 UTC

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