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

Re: ISSUE-46 (conversion of plain literals to IRIs): Should plain literals that match fully qualified IRIs be automatically converted to IRIs [RDFa 1.1 Core]

From: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@webbackplane.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 11:52:48 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=uvdCQXdAjqkmpjnjq_HwDmVVoH-WY4XChaqm6@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: RDFa Working Group WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

> I can see the merit of this approach, just adding some more thoughts to the
> discussion, though
>
> - you refer to the restriction of the automatic procedure to <meta>. I can see the
> value of that. But, if we do that, don't we reduce the dangers down to a level that
> we can simply go with the original approach (ie, no duplication of triples) but with
> that restriction?

Yes. Certainly if we go the way of converting a literal to a URI then
the same argument applies -- that we should consider restricting the
behaviour to the <meta> element.

However, as I said, this has the weakness that we've now changed the
data, rather than augmenting it.


> - I think we said last time that we would restrict the mechanism to those uri
> schemes that are officially registered by the IETF. Your proposal would restrict
> it to http scheme only. I think that is way too restrictive for the user community
> we have in mind, which would use, for example, https, ftp, or mailto fairly
> frequently, too...

I'm not completely wedded to this idea, but I think it's worth being
absolutely certain that we want to be this lax.

My understanding of the use-case described was not 'hey
everyone...let's just make literals and URIs the same', but rather the
motivation was that authors wanting to use something like OGP might
accidently use @property/@content instead of @rel/@resource/@href.

So if that is the use-case there is an argument for looking at the
scenarios in which these errors are most likely to arise, and they
would seem to be with references to web-sites.

Like I say, I'm not saying we shouldn't allow other protocols, but it
sounds to me like we might be going beyond what is being asked of us
to meet a particular authoring scenario, and that always brings with
it its own problems.

Regards,

Mark
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 10:53:47 UTC

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