- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:53:29 +0100
- To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <9178f78c1003241653s1307907dodd2de28a0a996123@mail.gmail.com>
2010/3/25 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> > On Wed, 2010-03-24 at 16:47 -0400, Ivan Herman wrote: > > What I said, to be more precise: if our goal is (and I think it is) to > > simplify RDFa and bring it closer to HTML(5) authors, then we should > > keep away from RDFS. We would shoot ourselves in the foot in the sense > > that it would make RDFa more complex conceptually, something we do not > > want to do... (sorry Toby:-) > > As I've said, I'm not suggesting that RDFa includes RDFS/OWL. (I had > previously suggested this though.) > > My suggestion is that RDFa does not need to contain a profile feature - > all it needs to do is provide a way of setting a default prefix. > > This would enable Google, say, to recommend publishing data like this: > > <p vocab="http://rdf.data-vocabulary.org/#" typeof="Person"> > <a property="name" rel="url" href="/">Toby Inkster</a> > </p> > > i.e. as they currently do, but without prefixes. > Quick question: does the @vocab proposal allow multiple occurrences with more and less specific meaning? The analogy I'm thinking of is @style in CSS... > > The default prefix (indeed, non-default prefixes too) *may* be > dereferenced to find an RDF schema, which might result in the consumer > being able to infer additional triples. But that's a consideration > orthogonal to RDFa 1.1. (After all, RDFS and OWL reasoning like that can > already be conducted on existing RDFa 1.0 documents if the consumer > chooses to do so.) > > No, this suggestion is not as powerful as RDFa profiles, but the use of > profiles introduces fragility into RDFa documents, and I'm not convinced > that the use cases suggested so far justify taking the risk with them. > > Whatsmore, I think that my suggestion leaves us room for adding profiles > in a future version of RDFa without changing the syntax. (You'd just > tell RDFa parsers to start performing profile processing on the URIs > given in @vocab.) Jumping straight to profiles doesn't allow us a > natural path back from them if they turn out to be a mistake. > > -- > Toby A Inkster > <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> > <http://tobyinkster.co.uk> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 23:54:03 UTC