- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:26:56 -0600
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
This was always my intention, FWIW. At least, it was after I failed to convince them to just use our registry. On 11/9/2010 5:59 PM, Nathan wrote: > Toby Inkster wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 23:09:12 +0000 >> Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: >> >>> cool - what about http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5988#section-6.2.2 >>> and >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml - >>> aren't the same terms mapped to (or may be mapped to) different IRIs? >> >> Atom (which fed into RFC 5988) maps link relations by adding this >> prefix: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/ >> >> RDFa 1.0 maps many of the same relations to: >> >> http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab# >> >> RDFa 1.1 can't really differ from 1.0 - we're chartered to maintain >> backwards compatibility as much as possible. However, the vocab could >> use owl:equivalentProperty or rdfs:subPropertyOf to link to the IANA >> URIs. >> > > sounds like a good fix/workaround :) -- Shane P. McCarron Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120 Managing Director Fax: +1 763 786-8180 ApTest Minnesota Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 14:27:46 UTC