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

Just a small remark on that

On Oct 5, 2010, at 23:43 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> Even if those concerns didn't apply to terms at all, I still think
>> there is value in keeping term mappings as-is for consistency
>> with prefix mappings.
> 
> I have not weighed in on the question of expressing prefix mappings in RDFa, because I don't consider that question critical. I would be happy with either option -- keep them as is, or change them along with the term mappings. Whatever finds consensus.
> 

This is a side issue, but I think it would be bad to have different syntaxes for term and prefix mappings. They should follow the same design in my view.

Ivan


> Best,
> Richard
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/wiki/ProfileSpec
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Toby A Inkster
>> <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Linked Data Technologist  Linked Data Research Centre
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> skype:richard.cyganiak
> tel:+353-91-49-5711
> 


----
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

Received on Wednesday, 6 October 2010 07:30:44 UTC