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

Re: Need volunteer reviewers for RDFa Core 1.1 (pre-Last Call)

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 19:22:24 -0400
To: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
CC: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <248814DA-0968-463E-B20C-5D6C4D81E86A@kellogg-assoc.com>
On Oct 18, 2010, at 2:02 PM, Shane McCarron wrote:

 *   I note that the format declares a prefix dcterms: http://purl.org/dc/terms/ whereas the body of the document uses dc: ttp://purl.org/dc/terms/. This is, of course, correct, but somewhat inconsistent.

Actually, I think we use dcterms: everywhere.  I could not find the string 'dc:' in the source.

Check out Section 2. Syntax Overview: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-core/#s_Syntax_overview

For brevity, in the following examples and throughout this document, assume that the following vocabulary prefixes have been defined:

bibo:   http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/
cc:     http://creativecommons.org/ns#
dbp:    http://dbpedia.org/property/
dbr:    http://dbpedia.org/resource/
dc:     http://purl.org/dc/terms/
ex:     http://example.org/
foaf:   http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
rdf:    http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
rdfa:   http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#
rdfs:   http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
xhv:    http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#
xsd:    http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#

Is there a newer draft where it's been changed?

Received on Monday, 18 October 2010 23:23:55 UTC

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