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

Re: Adding QUDT to RDFa Initial Context

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:48:29 +0200
Message-Id: <85CC8003-0FF0-4514-9581-AF1B1A8D2806@w3.org>
Cc: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
To: Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com>
Alex,

- Schema.org has been added because it was clear that, eventually, that would become one of the most widespread vocabularies around. (It was brand new at the time) In this sense, indeed, that was an exceptional case that the WG decided.

- The double prefix for dc was done after a discussion with and on request from DCMI. They had some internal issues with the different prefixes and versions and have asked us to add them.

- I do not understand your remark on ical. It is not defined through a rec or a note as far as I know. As for the unsuitable vocabularies are concerned in 2.2, I must admit I do not remember which ones were taken out; I can try to find out tomorrow if you want, but I do not remember any discussions about those at the time.

All in all, the community seems to be fine with the current list, we have received no complaints. We are committed not to change it very often to avoid an extra load on implementations, hence the need for an extra care about the widespread usage of a vocabulary.

We could, of course, decide to define a way richer set of prefixes, e.g., to base them on the LOV entries[1] (LOV did not exist at the time). But we should do this only if at least the majority of implementers agree. Note that there has been quite a lot of discussions about the initial contex, some were in favour of keeping it very small, ie, it is not clear that it would be easy to find a consensus. LOV contains over 300 vocabularies...

Cheers

Ivan

[1] http://lov.okfn.org/dataset/lov/

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 29 Aug 2013, at 18:51, Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.com> wrote:

> 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 17:48:57 UTC

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