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

Re: ISSUE-143 (Prefixes too complicated): Use of prefixes is too complicated for a Web technology [RDFa 1.1 in HTML5]

From: Sebastian Heath <sebastian.heath@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 10:37:10 -0500
Message-ID: <CACsb_1rN0-Y-Ruw5GS8=Ey7mz-w+kCqMiPiUoaGGW6LW0fua0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Ivan wrote:
> Indeed, the difference between what you propose and what is currently there already, is whether non-registered prefixes would be completely disallowed in your scheme.

Agreed. And it would be truly problematic for me if non-registered
prefixes were to be disallowed.

Take bibliographic information for example.

Dublin Core (which I assume we all agree would make the cut, despite
its poor historical choice to engender confusion of 'terms' and
'elements' and varieties of the latter) has some basic bibliographic
vocabulary. "BibliographicResource" and "BibliographicCitation" are
useful, along with creator, title, etc. But nobody could think that
it's a complete vocab for describing bibliographic data. So other
vocabs exist: http://bibliontology.com/ , http://purl.org/spar/cito ,
various renderings of MARC into RDF (e,g,
http://www.bl.uk/bibliographic/datafree.html), the same for FRBR

 Which of these will the W3 endorse with predefined prefixes? All?
That seems silly. Have their sponsoring organizations agreed to the W3
patent principles? Or will the W3 pick and choose? That will be
arbitrary. Or endorse none of these and abandon bibliographic data as
a first class citizen on the web? That's totally deficient. As in, you
can't seriously be asking me to stick in full URIs when using these
vocabs? That will be error prone.

 And here's a (only half-serious) shot across the bow: Schema.org is
only at an experimental phase and is relatively new. So I'm assuming
we'll exclude it from any set of standardized prefixes?

 We have a well thought out, existing and working mechanism for
allowing prefixes. Again, I move we keep it as is.

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2012 15:37:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:32 UTC