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

It is fine with me. L
-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

Actually... thinking about this again. The fact that the CC vocabulary defines the owl sameAs statement, it may be a better choice to use cc instead of dcterms. This way the change between RDFa 1.1 and RDFa 1.0 does not mean any 'semantic' change...

I.

On Feb 24, 2012, at 12:02 , Ivan Herman wrote:

> To be honest... I do not have strong feelings either way. What you say about the reference is true but,let us face it, most of the tools using RDFa will not really manage RDFS or OWL...
> 
> The only reason I am (very slightly!) in favour of DC is because I have the feeling that many users (eg, in governmental circles) regard DC is being more 'official'. Whatever that means...
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> 
> On Feb 24, 2012, at 11:08 , Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
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