- From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:03:20 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Manu shared a thought in a separate chat, where we could potentially resolve this problem by first doing a case-sensitive match and falling back to a case-insensitive match if one wasn't found in the first case. So, you might have the following markup: <div about="http://example.com/#me" typeof="Agent"> <span rel="agent"> .. <a rel="CiTE">.. It could correctly match typeof="Agent" to foaf:Agent and rel="agent" to event:agent, but would match rel="CiTE" to xhv:cite because it would fall back to a case-insensitive match. Gregg On Oct 9, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Nathan, > > Sadly,-:) the answer is yes... > > Ivan > > ---- > Ivan Herman > web: http://www.ivan-herman.net > mobile: +31 64 1044 153 > > On Oct 9, 2010, at 18:58, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > >> 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 20:04:06 UTC