W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > August 2013

Re: Adding QUDT to RDFa Initial Context

From: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:51:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CABp3FNL=1mJgA9rAvHAcaHUPZTEMVV1r_FubyKUYK2odcjuWfQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Looking at this data [1] that is referenced in the initial context, I see
that:

   dc11 http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/
   schema http://schema.org

aren't in the original data used to support the list of "common"
vocabularies.

Obviously, a strategic choice was made to include schema.org.  Also,
including both namespaces for the Dublin Core Metadata Terms makes a lot of
sense even though only one was found in the data.

I'm quite fine with these things being here but they stand as example of
not being widely used when they were added.

Also, in [1] there is a qualitative judgment being made in step 2.2. and
ical should have been removed per:

"Vocabularies defined through a W3C Recommendation or Working/Interest
Group Note (those are part of a default profile “ex officio”)"

and then possibly added back by whatever being part of 'default profile “ex
officio”' means.

I'm fine with waiting to see how QUDT is adopted but I'm now concerned
about the overall process of deciding what goes into the initial context.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/profile/data/


On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> Alex,
>
> the mechanism that lead to the first set has been described in
>
> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/profile/data/
>
> the executive summary is that there should be a proof that the given (non
> W3C rec defined) vocabulary is indeed widely used on the Web; we should
> _not_ be in position to make some sort of a qualitative judgement on the
> vocabularies in order to get them on the list.
>
> If we stick to this principle then I would say qudt may be a good
> candidate in a few years if it really catches attention (and I am perfectly
> happy to say it has good chances) but not at this moment...
>
> All that being said, we may have to think about re-running those (or
> similar) searches to see if anything significant has changed (or rely on
> some other services like LOV).
>
> Thx
>
> Ivan
>
> On Aug 29, 2013, at 03:00 , Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:
>
> > I have no idea what the procedures are for adding things to the initial
> context [1] but I'm going to throw this one into the mix.  I would like to
> see prefixes for the QUDT vocabulary [2] added.
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1
> > [2] http://www.qudt.org/
> >
> > --
> > --Alex Milowski
> > "The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of
> the
> > inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
> > considered."
> >
> > Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
--Alex Milowski
"The excellence of grammar as a guide is proportional to the paucity of the
inflexions, i.e. to the degree of analysis effected by the language
considered."

Bertrand Russell in a footnote of Principles of Mathematics
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 16:51:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:05:34 UTC