- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:12:15 +0100
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Shane McCarron wrote: > Yes - this was part of the rationale for requiring that 'terms' always > be processed in a case insensitive manner. I appreciate the use case > where there might be a hybrid vocabulary defined that brought in terms > that differ only in case. I propose that we include in the RDFa Core > spec (in the section on RDFa Profiles) a note that when defining such a > profile, the author should either forgo one of the terms OR, more > interestingly, change one of the terms so that there is no collision. > For example, stealing from Gregg's example the other day: >> >> [ rdfa:term "agent"; rdfa:uri >> "http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#agent" ] . >> [ rdfa:term "Agent"; rdfa:uri "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent" ] . >> > > Basically, don't do that. Instead, do: > > > [ rdfa:term "owlAgent"; rdfa:uri > "http://purl.org/NET/c4dm/event.owl#agent" ] . > [ rdfa:term "foafAgent"; rdfa:uri "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Agent" ] . > > No conflict - viola! sorry, but immediately this screams of no-benefit to me, that's just a non-problematic-CURIE with the colon removed - and that we'd be better just to stick to rel="foaf:Agent" rel="owl:agent" and viola no conflict at all and issue resolved. In many ways rdfa:term is only really useful if it's a functionality match for microformats and link-relations, case insensitive. ps: fwiw I can't think of an example where we'd have a class like foaf:Agent in the property position of a triple, but this still affects things like :holdsAccount :replyTo etc - but again when would an ontology ever have `:replyTo` and `:replyto` in it? So maybe this is a use case we never really hit with any ambiguity.. Best, Nathan
Received on Saturday, 9 October 2010 16:13:33 UTC