- From: Thomas Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:34:32 -0500
- To: RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Dear all, Some of the examples in [1] generate triples such as: <> foaf:primaryTopic <#bbq> . <> dcterms:creator "Jo" . However, http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator has a range of dcterms:Agent. Using dc:creator would not be incorrect because http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator has no specified range (or rather, by default, rdfs:Resource). This is discussed in [2] and in an earlier posts to this list [3,4] in which I asked: 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? I would like to ask the question again because it is clearly difficult to get the difference between the two URIs straight (even in specs :-) and because I see Jeni Tennison has argued, in slide 8 of her TPAC talk [5], that a "fudge between literals and resources" is one of the "compromises that need to be made" in RDFa. Tom [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20101026/ [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Jun/0017.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010May/0089.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0024.html [5] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/RDF-SW-velocity.pdf -- Tom Baker <tbaker@tbaker.de>
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2010 20:35:05 UTC