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

Feedback on RDFa + HTML / Primer re conventional values for @vocab

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:59:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFp6CbH2+YWn8qQR7QdDiyUgQaRrxxFzaS6ZnxS29neB=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Cc: danbri <danbri@google.com>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>
(regarding http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-rdfa-in-html-20120911/ and
RDFa Lite deployment in general)

Migrating here from a G+ conversation with Ivan,

I said "It would be nice to squeeze in a warning against tricky use of
vocab URIs, eg. vocab="http://schema.org/P' ... typeof="erson"

Ivan Herman12:20 PM: Dan, this should be part of a new version of the
Primer, not the formal spec… and yes, we should look at this. Any
wording you can propose?

Dan Brickley12:27 PM: Hmm something like "The @vocab attribute
references structured data vocabularies, identified using URIs/URLs.
This document does not limit the form of these URIs or the document
formats accessible by de-referencing them; however note that RDFa
markup SHOULD aim to use widely shared, conventional values for
identifying such vocabularies, following conventions of case, spelling
etc. established by their publishers. " ?

To elaborate:

The concern is that we ought to have language in a W3C spec somewhere
(Primer is ok by me, though in a recommendation would be better) that
strongly discourages clever-clever use of Vocab URIs and terms that
concatenate to give legitimate term URIs yet don't give you a useful
vocabulary URI.

Specifically, I want something we can cite w.r.t. schema.org
deployment that indicates (i) vocab="http://schema.org/P' ...
typeof="erson" is not good, while (ii) vocab="http://schema.org/' ...
typeof="Person" is ok.

I'm not sure exactly how to formulate the problem and wording to
address it, but hope there is enough here to work with. What I've
tried to do in the draft text above is to indicate that the publisher
of the vocabulary is the right party to say how their URLs are
spelled, structured, etc. I thought this worked better than to try to
cast things in technical terms such as what you get if you dereference
the vocab URI. So for example, while 'http://ScHema.ORG:80/' might be
guaranteed by Web architecture to just be another name for the thing
whose URI is 'http://schema.org/', we encourage convergence towards
the latter, which is the preferred spelling of the Vocab URL/URI from
its provider. I don't think we need to say explicitly how those
conventions are documented.


Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2012 11:59:50 UTC

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