- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:53:16 +0100
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <DA2B05A1-E04A-4009-9E84-C2A69711E870@w3.org>
On Feb 14, 2012, at 24:22 , Niklas Lindström wrote: > Hi Shane, Ivan, > > In <http://creativecommons.org/ns#>, cc:license is defined to be > owl:sameAs xhv:license, and rdfs:subClassOf dc:license. It also has > rdfs:domain cc:Work and rdfs:range cc:License. So the use of it > implies an rdf:type for the subject and object as well. > > RDFa 1.0 explicitly defined @rel="license" to mean xhv:license. > Creative Commons are silent on the exact IRI of the predicate when > used without the 'cc:' prefix though -- they only use the wording "In > this case, the relationship is "license" -- but as we know they do use > RDFa. > > In general, I'd recommend dc:license, since it is the most general of > the three. But I would still prefer to allow authors to control this > with @vocab. > That works for me. I do not really care which of the two we use. Ivan > > To reply to your comments Shane, I'm not sure I understand what you > mean by this changing randomly? Authors have full control over the > vocabulary for terms with @vocab (and as we've seen, they have to > exercise this to manage the situation in <head> and with e.g. > 'prefetch' or 'nofollow'). > > Of course, someone may add > @vocab="http://www.example.org/randomURI/somepage#" to the body, just > as they might add @prefix="foaf: > http://www.example.org/stochasticURI/otherpage#". I mean, this is what > RDFa is about. If you don't control the surroundings of your markup, > you either have to rely on a contract with the manager of that, or > explicitly use @prefix, @vocab and/or full IRIs to control your > properties and types. > > I am sympathetic to your appreciation of 'license', but I wonder if it > really is so generally ingrained in authors that it warrants such a > special treatment? With my proposal it would still always mean > xhv:license (or e.g. cc:license if we change it) unless someone > explicitly uses @vocab (which even so can be reset again with an empty > value). This is all very dependent on the expectations and background > knowledge of authors, as well as how vocabulary publishers want @vocab > to work with their vocabularies. Imagine e.g. if Schema.org mint their > own IRI for 'license' in the future. (Not that *I* would like that, > but such is the playing field which I want us to level.) > > It is the uniformity of expression in markup like this that I think we > should value: > > <div vocab="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"> > <h2 property="title">The Origin of Species</h2> > <p>License: <a property="license" > href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain/"> > Public Domain</a>.<p> > </div> > > Here's another example. I wonder what most people would expect from: > > <dl vocab="http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#" typeof="VCard"> > <dt>Name</dt><dd property="fn">Corky Crystal</dd> > <dt>Role</dt><dd property="role">Officer</dd> > <dt>Email</dt><dd property="email">corky@example.com</dd> > </dl> > > I really doubt that it's obvious that 'role' in the above actually > means xhv:role! > > For 'role' specifically, I am unable to find where its use as a term > in the @rel attribute is specified. I find old drafts of it used as > such in <link> elements in XHTML2, but I thought this was superseded > by the specific @role attribute used by WAI-ARIA? May it even be that > we don't need to define 'role' as a reserved term? > > Perhaps many authors (and systems) really do expect 'describedby', > 'license' and 'role' to be fixed to their predefined IRIs even when a > local vocabulary is active. I only believe that it's just as probable > that many will not, but will instead expect that @vocab works > uniformly without special exceptions. > > One idea could be to cater for *both* of these expectations. If the > rules instead were cumulative -- i.e. even if a term mapping is found, > @vocab would have effect -- then this: > > <a vocab="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" property="license" > href="/cc-by">CC-BY</a> > > would produce *two* statements: > > <> dc:license </cc-by> . > <> xhv:license </cc-by> . > > At least this way, no information is lost. But it would be really > gnarly in e.g. the case of the vCard role example above, where the two > conflicting properties don't even nearly resemble each other. :/ > > .. Granted, if 'role' *could* be safely removed (leaving only > 'license' and 'describedby'), and if 'license' was changed to mean the > very general 'dc:license', I suppose I would be pacified enough even > without any rule changes. At least if no one else sees this as an > issue, and assuming nothing like <http://schema.org/license> would > ever come up as contentious. > > Best regards, > Niklas > > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> wrote: >> I have not found the reference but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Steven, >> can you please confirm that the XHTML WG intent was that 'license' meant >> 'cc:license' in XHTML2? That's where RDFa comes from. >> >> >> On 2/13/2012 1:06 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>> On 13 Feb 2012, at 19:22, Shane McCarron<shane@aptest.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't really mind. license in xhv should point to cc license anyway, >>>> which in turn might point somewhere else. XHTML says that its license is >>>> the same as cc:license (I think) >>> >>> Shane, could you check this? If this is indeed the case, then we should >>> definitely define that to be cc license and, I believe, that would alleviate >>> Niklas' issue, too. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>>> and that is surely what we meant. Entailment should make this work >>>> right... >>>> >>>> On 2/13/2012 12:21 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Shane, >>>>> >>>>> and what about my idea that might also pacify Niklas, namely that >>>>> 'license' would not be mapped against the xhv:license property as now but >>>>> rather to dcterms:license? The fact of the matter is that, at least in the >>>>> RDF world, *nobody* uses xhv:license for, well, license, everybody uses >>>>> either dcterms or cc... >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 13, 2012, at 17:46 , Shane McCarron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >> >> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 05:50:57 UTC