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

On Oct 4, 2010, at 24:17 , Manu Sporny wrote:

[snip]

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> To be fair, the concerns are both Ivan and Mark's.
> 

I did (and still do to a certain extend) have my issues, yes, so indeed it is unfair to put the weight on solely Mark's (admittingly wide) shoulders:-). I think Toby had similar issues, too. But, that being said,...
 

>> 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 boogeyman.
> 
> Perhaps Mark and/or Ivan can discuss this issue with you on-list before
> we push the discussion back to the RDFa WG. I would certainly like to
> see a rebuttal to the points that you raised here:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Aug/0076.html
> 

... I find the argument to make the profile files easier to author compelling even if, spec-wise, I am not really happy with it.

The 'compromise' solution that was discussed[1] and that very explicitly restricts the domain of discourse of these triples on the processor graph answers many of my concerns, though. As a consequence, and to merge several issues together, I am happy to go with a profile file in RDFa (or RDF in general) with the profile graph related solution.

Ivan

Note that Issue-46 is somewhat related. Indeed, in case the WG votes to go with the proposal in [2], a side issue is that the RDFa encoding of profile files become even more complicated...


[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/ProfileSpec
[2] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/46

----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf