- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:35:20 -0400
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4BA79C48.8090804@w3.org>
Manu, On 2010-3-21 12:39 , Manu Sporny wrote: > On 03/20/2010 06:07 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >> But then we are discussing three proposals, aren't we? > > Not necessarily... more below. > >> On 2010-3-19 21:31 , Manu Sporny wrote: >> [skip] >>> >>> * RDFa vocabulary proposal (Ivan/Manu) >>> * @token proposal (Mark) >>> * Default prefix proposal (Toby/Martin) > I think that default prefix proposal is different and actually orthogonal to the other two (you yourself rebut the merge of that one with others...) I think the choice is between the 1st and the 2nd, essentially on the issue of context specific interpretation of the @profile file. We can then have the default prefix possibility, _too_ (and I actually believe having some sort of a @profile plus that actually makes sense) Ivan > We could reconcile the RDFa vocabulary proposal and the default prefix > proposal by doing this: > > <p profile="http://example.com/my-vocab#" > about="#curious-character" typeof="Book"> > <span property="title">Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!</title> > </p> > > The example above mixes the Bibliography (Book) and Dublin Core (title) > ontologies. There are two cases that we're interested in: > > 1. What happens when you can dereference the @profile? > 2. What happens when you can't dereference the @profile? > > What happens when you can dereference the @profile > -------------------------------------------------- > > This is the easiest and most straight-forward case. If you can > dereference the @profile, assuming error-free profile and author > documents, you will have the set of mappings and thus can generate the > proper RDF triples *in the default graph*: > > <#curious-character> > rdf:type > bibo:Book . > > <#curious-character> > dc:title > "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" . > > I don't think anybody would argue that this is ideally what we want to > happen. This always works as long as the @profile document is available > (via ad-hoc download, via an application ontology cache, via a ontology > backup service, or if the @profile document triples are hardcoded in the > parser). > > What happens when you cannot dereference the @profile > ----------------------------------------------------- > > This is the case that the default prefix approach excels at addressing. > At this point, let's introduce a completely new concept called the > "Deferred Resolution Graph" (DRG). This graph is where triples that > cannot be resolved, due to @profile document dereferencing issues, are > placed until the @profile document that they depend on can be retrieved. > > Let's assume that @profile has the added semantics of @vocab as Toby has > defined in this e-mail: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Mar/0174.html > > Therefore, the following markup: > > <p profile="http://example.com/my-vocab#" > about="#curious-character" typeof="Book"> > <span property="title">Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!</title> > </p> > > would produce the following triples, if the @profile document can be > retrieved, *into the default graph*: > > <#curious-character> > rdf:type > bibo:Book . > > <#curious-character> > dc:title > "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" . > > If the @profile document *cannot* be retrieved, the following triples > would go *into the deferred resolution graph*: > > <#curious-character> > rdf:type > <http://example.com/my-vocab#Book>^^UNRESOLVED . > > <#curious-character> > <http://example.com/my-vocab#title>^^UNRESOLVED > "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" . > > Those triples in the *deferred resolution graph* could only be placed > into the *default graph* once the UNRESOLVED URIs are resolved at some > point (via ad-hoc download at a different time, via an application > ontology cache, or via an ontology backup service). > > Conclusion > ---------- > > So Ivan, while you stated that we are talking about three different > proposals, I hope that this demonstrates that the RDFa vocabulary > proposal and the default prefix proposal can be combined with relative > ease to produce a hybrid approach that produces the benefits of both > approaches. > > Note that while I took the time to outline the possible deferred > resolution graph concept, I think it's a bad idea for a number of reasons. > > -- manu > -- 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 Monday, 22 March 2010 16:34:22 UTC