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

Comment on RDFa Core 1.1: vocabulary prefix "dc:"

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 20:02:14 -0400
Message-ID: <4BF1D906.9000800@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
CC: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
This message, sent from Tom Baker on April 23rd 2010, didn't get to the
RDFa WG mailing list for some reason. Forwarding his feedback on RDFa
Core 1.1 on to the mailing list.


Dear all,

The current draft of RDFa Core 1.1 [1] has some inconsistencies
with regard to the vocabulary prefix "dc:":

-- Section 2, Syntax Overview, defines "dc:" as http://purl.org/dc/terms/.
   This is the prefix that DCMI generally promotes, because properties in
   this namespace have formal ranges.

-- The examples in Section 2.2 define the prefix as
   http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/, the namespace in which
   properties have no formal range.  Are there perhaps good
   reasons to prefer the more lightly specified /1.1/ namespace
   for use with RDFa?  If so, should DCMI consider making the
   case more explicit and actively promote the use of /1.1/
   with RDFa?

-- The example RDFa profile document described in RDFa
   Core 1.1, http://www.example.org/vocab-rdf-dc.html, says
   that the prefix "dc:" can be used for the URI
   http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/ -- the
   URL of the XHTML document describing DCMI metadata
   terms which is, however, _not_ promoted for use in
   identifying properties and classes.  Note that the
   XHTML document currently has name= anchors such as
   intended to be used as document anchors, not as identifiers.

It has been suggested that DCMI publish its vocabulary using
RDFa instead of (or in addition to) publishing it as a separate
RDF schema, and in light of the inconsistencies in [1], I
wonder if doing so could risk further compounding the confusion
about which URI to use -- especially if the vocabulary were
to continue to be published at [2].  Any advice this group
could offer DCMI on this point would be much appreciated.

Many thanks,

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100422/
[2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/

Tom Baker, DCMI <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 00:03:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:19 UTC