W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Triple(s) that describe the vocabulary

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:18:21 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5jfJXHiJDWorjGwg77M4nWpESRkiBbbysE0caf32z00oYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
2011/11/12 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:21:14 +0100
> Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Shouldn't that be 'usesVocabulary', as per [1]?
> I don't like that very much.
> A good RDF predicate is one that fits naturally into the following two
> phrases:
>        "has ..."
>        "is ... of"
> For example
>        "has homepage"
>        "is homepage of"
> But consider:
>        "has usesVocabulary"
>        "is usesVocabulary of"
> Anything wrong with <http://www.w3.org/ns/rdfa#vocab>? That way the
> predicate matches the name of the attribute.

Actually there are a number of common predicates which don't follow
this pattern (of a property noun) but rather a verb. For instance in
Dublin Core there is 'replaces', 'requires', 'references' and
'conformsTo'; in FOAF there is 'knows', 'depicts' and 'based_near'.

The argument for 'usesVocabulary' over 'hasVocabulary' was to indicate
that the document doesn't "have" this vocabulary but uses it.

That said, I wouldn't mind 'vocab' instead, since that is what the
attribute is called. I think I'd even prefer it.

Do you have an opinion regarding whether the object should be an IRI
or a literal?

Best regards,
Received on Sunday, 13 November 2011 13:19:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:27 UTC