- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 14:02:14 -0400
- To: Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- CC: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
On 06/24/2011 05:55 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet wrote: > As far as I can tell from the current spec, @vocab is expected to be a > URI. If a prefix was allowed, it would allow for shorter RDFa snippets > when combined with the RDFa core default profile [1]. > > The following snippet taken from the RDFa 1.1 spec: > > <div vocab="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" about="#me"> > My name is <span property="name">John Doe</span> and my blog is called > <a rel="homepage" href="http://example.org/blog/">Understanding > Semantics</a>. > </div> > > could be rewritten: > > <div vocab="foaf" about="#me"> > My name is <span property="name">John Doe</span> and my blog is called > <a rel="homepage" href="http://example.org/blog/">Understanding > Semantics</a>. > </div> > > Is there a technical reason why @vocab was only allowed to be a URI? I don't think we ever considered having a CURIE in @vocab. If we did, I don't remember the discussion. If we have a "Basic" RDFa profile, we may not want to support CURIEs in @vocab. There is the simplicity argument as well - making RDFa any more complex than it already is must have a very strong return on the additional functionality. It would be /neat/ to be able to express CURIEs in @vocab, but is it necessary? Do we think that it will help uptake of the language? What are the use cases that absolutely need it that the other mechanisms don't cover? -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: PaySwarm Developer Tools and Demo Released http://digitalbazaar.com/2011/05/05/payswarm-sandbox/
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2011 18:02:39 UTC