- 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