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

Re: A *minor* question on default terms...

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:08:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CADjV5jc1SM2HTfeEpvZ8bW2VkqVtgDpKivxdvtEQvera79cH9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> Not to worry, my question does not have any influence on the spec:-)

Neither does this reply. ;)

> During the email discussion on the '@vocab nukes it all' issue, a side-issue came up. At the moment, the URI specified for the 'license' term is http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml/vocab#license. In my view, this is certainly *not* what people would expect for this term but, rather, either a dcterms or a cc license URI.
>
> I *know* that there are statements here and there that declare the equivalence of these terms via some vocabulary statements. But the fact of the matter is that we cannot expect RDFa processors to look these up. As a consequence, this xhtml namespaced URI will look funny.

I agree.

> My proposal would be that, at least in RDFa 1.1, the term 'license' would be defined as
>
> http://purl.org/dc/terms/license
>
> in the initial context.
>
> Thoughts?

Had the term been kept as reserved ("sticky", non-overridable), I
would go for dc:license, since it is very general‚ well-known and
imposes no domain on the subject.

But since it is a default term (which can be overridden by @vocab to
control meaning), it may be better to refer specifically to
cc:license?

The CC vocabulary specifies this:

    cc:license a rdf:Property;
        rdfs:subPropertyOf dc:license;
        owl:sameAs xhv:license;
        rdfs:domain cc:Work; rdfs:range cc:License .

So, in theory, a system which knows the CC vocabulary (and RDFS+OWL)
and looks specifically for cc:license will match xhv:license but not
dc:license. (Also notice that the domain and range of cc:license are
subsets of those of dc:license. For all I now though, they share the
same extension in practise.)

In other words, a change to cc:license is semantically equivalent to
the current state. Using dc:license relaxes the semantics slightly. I
have no strong opinion either way.

Best regards,
Niklas


> Ivan
>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 10:09:52 UTC

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