- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:40:03 +0000
- To: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org, phila@w3.org
How controversial would it be to add describedby as a term to the XHTML profile for RDFa 1.1? I'm suggesting: [ a rdfa:TermMapping ] rdfa:term "describedby" ; rdfa:uri "http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#describedby" . I say "controversial" because if it were added to the XHTML profile it would be the only term to expand to a URI outside the XHTML vocabulary namespace. But it seems useful to have, as this relation is used quite a bit in the XRD/LRDD/WebFinger world. -Toby ---- Begin forwarded message: Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:04:57 +0000 From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> To: Public POWDER <public-powderwg@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org> Subject: wdrs:describedby = @rel describedby. Erratum published As noted on the LOD and POWDER mailing lists in recent days, the revived 303/200 with content-location header debate brought to my attention the mismatch in the documentation of wdrs:describedby. Two headlines ============= 1. On behalf of the former POWDER WG, I apologise for the confusion and for the fact that we hadn't realised the mistake earlier. 2. It has now been fixed as far as it can be for now, with the expectation of a complete fix in the new year. Brief detail ============ The @rel type of 'describedby' is introduced at [1] and formally defined at [2] thus: "The relationship A 'describedby' B asserts that resource B provides a description of resource A. There are no constraints on the format or representation of either A or B, neither are there any further constraints on either resource." The namespace document for wdrs [3] has now been edited to make it clear that wdrs:describedby is semantically identical to this. The previous, erroneous, range restriction has been removed. Much as I wish I could, I can't just edit the actual POWDER Recommendation - that requires the following of a change process. However, I have published an erratum [4] that makes it clear what edits are expected to be made once the process has been followed (as well as a link to details of the process itself, currently in draft form). The erratum gives full details of the issue and points to the mailing list through which comments can be made. It's worth noting in this context that the @rel value describedby is included Mark Nottingham's Web linking document, that has now, at last, become an RFC [5]. So, with confidence, we can say that all of the following are legitimate and semantically identical: (X)HTML, ATOM <link rel="describedby" href="/doc" type="foo/bar" /> HTTP Link: </doc>; rel="describedby" type="foo/bar"; RDF @prefix wdrs: <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#> . <> wdrs:describedby </doc> . Phil. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#assoc-linking [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#appD [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s.html#describedby [4] http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/powder-errata#describedby [5] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988 -- Phil Archer Former POWDER WG chair http://philarcher.org/ @philarcher1 N.B. For POWDER-related issues neither my Talis nor my W3C Team affiliation is appropriate. Instead, I am allied to Institute of Informatics & Telecommunications (IIT), NCSR "Demokritos" for this. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:40:28 UTC