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

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

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard.cyganiak@deri.org>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 15:04:40 +0100
Cc: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4F4A699B-EDEF-4A4F-9464-67B6673622A0@deri.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Hi Manu,

On 3 Oct 2010, at 23:17, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Just to clarify, if the group ends up not supporting the single  
> property
> mechanism that you describe, is that something that you can live with?
> Or do you believe that it will do a great amount of harm? In other
> words, how strongly do you feel about this?

I think that RDFa's profile mechanism is a key element in the quest  
for a practical RDF deployment story. Without profiles, RDFa is at a  
severe disadvantage compared to Microdata. Thus, having RDFa profiles,  
and getting them right, is incredibly important for the future of RDF.

You cannot make the RDFa profile mechanism more complex and justify it  
by claiming that this complexity is necessary for reasons of  
theoretical correctness, without showing why the simple approach is  
not correct.

You cannot make the RDFa profile mechanism more complex and justify it  
by claiming that the RDF community would not accept the simple  
approach, without showing such resistance, and actually the opinion of  
the general web developer community is much more relevant to this  
question.

So yes I do feel very strongly about this.

> Are there any other "RDF Experts" that support your viewpoint?

I talked this through with Henry Story when he was visiting Galway  
recently and he confirmed my view that this is in line with RDF  
Semantics.

Best,
Richard
Received on Monday, 4 October 2010 14:05:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:21 UTC