- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:44:44 -0500
- 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