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

Re: HTML5 Polyglot spec and RDFa

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:44:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4CB09BFC.2090609@aptest.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>


On 10/9/2010 11:12 AM, Nathan wrote:
>
> 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..

I agree with you here on both counts.  I wouldn't ever put both things 
in the same vocabulary.  However, I could see a situation where two 
profiles loaded - one that defined Agent and the next one defined 
agent.  In that case, the second definition would win.  This is entirely 
consistent with the model we have espoused from day one, but it still 
might surprised the great unwashed out there.

>
> Best,
>
> Nathan

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com
Received on Saturday, 9 October 2010 16:45:23 UTC

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