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

Fw: wdrs:describedby = @rel describedby. Erratum published

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
Message-ID: <20101109184003.515b58fd@miranda.g5n.co.uk>
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

But it seems useful to have, as this relation is used quite a bit in
the XRD/LRDD/WebFinger world.


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:

<link rel="describedby" href="/doc" type="foo/bar" />

Link: </doc>; rel="describedby" type="foo/bar";

@prefix wdrs: <http://www.w3.org/2007/05/powder-s#> .
<> wdrs:describedby </doc> .


[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

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
Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 18:40:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:22 UTC