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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:07:42 +0200
Cc: W3C RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, danbri <danbri@google.com>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>
Message-Id: <0FB3ABF1-8005-4A2E-A2EA-0663F4B63453@w3.org>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Dan,

I have added this to the errata for the primer into:

http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/errata.html

A new version of the primer should be out sometimes early next year, when HTML5+RDFa becomes final, and will therefore incorporate that note.

Thanks

Ivan

On Sep 12, 2012, at 13:59 , Dan Brickley wrote:

> (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,
> https://plus.google.com/u/0/113268051484517627727/posts/2tuhPzNZD8F
> 
> 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"
> etc...".
> 
> 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.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Dan
> 


----
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 Thursday, 13 September 2012 11:08:07 UTC

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