- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 17:58:31 +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:
> 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.
Just need to clarify by expanding the use-case - could an rdfa:term also
be used with @typeof?
<div about"x:robot" typeof="Agent">
<span rel="agent" ...
if so then I have to null and void what I said previously, sadly
Best,
Nathan
Received on Saturday, 9 October 2010 16:59:49 UTC