W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: ISSUE-129 (Power of @vocab): Change the power of @vocab, related to default term interpretation [3rd LC Comments - RDFa 1.1 Core]

From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:46:28 -0600
Message-ID: <4F393E64.60904@aptest.com>
To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
CC: RDF Web Applications Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Yes.  I read your mail.  I respectfully disagree.  Just because we can 
do a thing does not necessarily mean we must do a thing.  As an 
anecdote, I am going to cite something that happened back in the day 
when I was part of X3J16 (ANSI C++ standards committee).

Everyone wanted C++ to be maximally flexible.  Lots of people had GREAT 
ideas about how to accomplish this.  One such idea was that it should be 
possible to redefine every operator to do anything.  So, for example, an 
object could make it so '+' meant '-'.  Or worse yet, so '+' meant '*'.  
At the time this was hailed as a brilliant piece of abstraction.  In 
reality it was idiotic. Some things need to be constant.

We have defined a VERY limited set of things that are constant and can 
be relied upon to work everywhere all the time.  As an author, I 
appreciate this.  'license' means license.  It does not mean 
http://www.example.org/randomURI/somepage#license.  I know this and I am 
thankful.  I know this in the same way I know that 'foaf:' is defined as 
a prefix for me, and that it means the right thing.  I wouldn't want 
that to change randomly either.

On 2/13/2012 10:21 AM, Niklas Lindström wrote:
> Hi Shane,
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Shane McCarron<shane@aptest.com>  wrote:
>> My immediate reaction to this is "ummm... no?"  We can't reverse this order.
>>   It would mean that if there is EVER an @vocab then terms don't work.  Why
>> would we want terms to not work?  Or am I missing something?
> Yes, I explain why in depth in my email (specifically the section
> "Predefined terms") [1], and Ivan had some thoughts on it as well [2],
> which I'll reply to as soon as I can.
>
> The short answer as to why is: because terms can clash with the intent
> of authors relying on @vocab to apply uniformly.
>
> Kind regards,
> Niklas
>
> [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0021.html
> [2]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2012Feb/0024.html
>
>
>> On 2/13/2012 2:24 AM, RDF Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker
>> wrote:
>>> ISSUE-129 (Power of @vocab): Change the power of @vocab, related to
>>> default term interpretation [3rd LC Comments - RDFa 1.1 Core]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/track/issues/129
>>>
>>> Raised by: Niklas Lindström
>>> On product: 3rd LC Comments - RDFa 1.1 Core
>>>
>>> The essence of the proposal change the rules in 7.4.3 to:
>>>
>>> [[[
>>> * If there is a local default vocabulary, the IRI is obtained by
>>> concatenating that value and the term.
>>> * Otherwise, check if the term matches an item in the list of local
>>> term mappings. First compare against the list case-sensitively, and if
>>> there is no match then compare case-insensitively. If there is a
>>> match, use the associated IRI.
>>> * Otherwise, the term has no associated IRI and must be ignored.
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>> See related mails
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Shane McCarron
>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
>> +1 763 786 8160 x120
>>
>>

-- 
Shane McCarron
Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc.
+1 763 786 8160 x120
Received on Monday, 13 February 2012 16:47:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:30 UTC