Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-39: RDFa term mapping triples

On 3 Oct 2010, at 17:31, Manu Sporny wrote:
> If there are no objections to this proposal in 7 days, we will close
> ISSUE-39: rdfa term mapping triples.

I object.

> The group has found that while Richard's proposal
> does ease RDFa Profile authoring, it simultaneously raises concerns  
> that
> the mappings are not being modeled in a way that is acceptable by the
> broader semantic web community.

I don't think the WG can presume an opinion of the “broader community.”

The concerns are Mark's own, not those of the broader community.

Mark's concerns about “semantical correctness” are unfounded. The  
proposal to use a single triple for expressing term mappings is  
absolutely in line with RDF Semantics -- see [1], which answers all  
points raised.

If Mark disagrees with this, then I would like the WG to present a  
rejection that is based on what's actually stated in the RDF Semantics  
document [2], rather than based on some imaginary RDF Semantics  

> While the mechanism is a bit more
> complicated, it does not risk polluting the modeling data for the
> vocabulary term. In other words, it keeps a strict separation between
> CURIE processing instructions and vocabulary term expression.

There was a proposal that addresses this risk, by defining the notion  
of a "profile graph" [3].



> Please comment in 7 days from this post if you object to this  
> proposal.
> If there are no objections within 7 days, ISSUE-39 will be closed.
> -- manu
> -- 
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
> President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: WebID - Universal Login for the Web

Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre
Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland

Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 18:19:31 UTC