- From: BAI XI <xi.bai.ed@googlemail.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 02:39:39 +0100
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <p2q7c50efa31005051839g2c00bfb7z9453bea658d6b74@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, I think one of benefits we can get from @profile is the prefix/term resuability. So if the RDFa publisher wants to use dozens of vocabularies, he or she does not have to put all of them in the @prefix one by one each time. However, as said in Jeni's email, this will cause the dereferencing issue when external profiles are off-line. My thoughts here are more from the perspective of usability. These prefixes and terms should be reusable but they need to be wrapped in the documents curated by some always-on-line and change-less-frequently organizations (e.g., W3C, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook, etc,). Hopefully, as time goes by, some of them will become more pervasive and widely used. Because the profile document is also defined in an "approved RDFa Host Language" (or "other RDF serializations"), technically the profile in RDFa can include other profiles as well. Profiles should not be retrieved recursively and this has been mentioned in RDFa core 1.1 Maybe it will be too extreme but I think each profile document should explicitly contain all prefixes or terms about which the publishers are concerned and should not employ other profiles (Maybe just <http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#> is needed but it does not have to be wrapped in a profile document instead of being attached with a prefix defination). If one profile does need prefixes defined in another (i have not got a use case for this), these prefixes should be copied from the latter to the former explicitly and within this process, the profile curator is also responsible for avoiding the prefixes duplication. With respect to the duplicated prefixes, i think the prefixes defined by publishers themselves using @prefix should always overwrite the same prefixes defined in the employed external profiles because the formers are more likely to be used during the publishing. It is more tricky that the publisher employs more than one external profile containing duplicated prefixes/terms which denote different URIs unless we could add the prefix provenance information like "profile1:abc: http://AmericanBroadcastingCompany#" and "profile2:abc:http://AustralianBroadcastingCorporation#". The above are my thoughts if @profile has to be there. Xi Bai
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 01:40:12 UTC