Re: @profile

Nathan,

just editorial questions on what you wrote

On Sep 16, 2010, at 01:31 , Nathan wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
>> As yet I'm personally undecided as to whether the benefits outweigh the potential problems
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that because additional resources need to be successfully dereferenced in order to successfully extract the *full* RDF graph serialized in an RDFa document which uses @profile, then:
> 
> @profile makes it possible for critical information (such as copyright licences, digital signatures, ownership information) to be effectively missing/ignored without the document owner/author having any knowledge or control over the situation.
> 
> Complexity in parsing together with both real and perceived latency is increased exponentially.
> 
> The number of additional resources that need to be dereferenced is unbounded (each of which inherits all @profile related issues)
> 
> Unlike a missing @prefix declaration which can be caught by validation tools, @prefix is impossible to

Do you mean @profile for the second time? Unless so, I cannot parse this sentence

>  validate (from a perspective that the graph produced by parsing an RDFa document containing @profile will temporally vary from that which was serialized in the document, without the author knowing or having any control).
> 
> Fundamentally it involves (or implies that) authors should treat prefixes as "more than sugar" which can 

do you mean profiles or prefixes? If prefixes, I do not understand your point


> lead to many decisions and notions such as:
> - treating a prefix as an identifier / short name for an ontology/schema.


Same question here...

> - the usage of, and reliance upon, default profiles, which may not be implemented in all RDFa parsing libraries.
> - competition for prefixes, implies that a "registry" is needed, which would entail registration, thus 

... and here

> review, thus standardization - which ultimately would mean most people couldn't uses prefixes because the steps required to "own" a web scale prefix mapped to ontology would rule out most ontologies/schemas.

... and here

> - possible centralization, treating "profiles" as centralized registries for prefixes, the default profile being the primary one.
> - more.. (will leave it at that)
> 

Ie, if I replace prefix by profiles then these bullet items make sense to me, but I have difficulties to understand the points in their present state...

Thanks

Ivan



> For me at least, the above *really* outweighs the benefits introduced by @profile, and sadly, I'd have to say that my personal opinion is that it should be removed from the specification - however as noted previously I value and respect the hard work you've all the decisions you've reached as a group.
> 
> This, with all due respect to the RDFa Core editors and the working group, I'd like to suggest that @profile is reviewed by some experts in the field before RDFa Core gets to recommendation, most likely Ned Freed and the IETF Types mailing list via <mailto:ietf-types@alvestrand.no>, somebody from the TAG and perhaps somebody from the HTTP working group.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Nathan


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf