- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 17:59:02 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Thomas Baker <tom@tombaker.org>, "W3C RDFa WG" <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for the catch and the follow up! In fact I thought this was already part of the document. It's several weeks since I see the W3C pyRDFa parser spitting out RDF from my RDFa and minting the dc11 namespace abbreviation in the process. But maybe I'm interpreting signs in a too optimistic way :-) Antoine > Good point. We made the commitment not to change the context file often, so I did not make a change yet. Manu, should we introduce this change now and make it official? Are there other additions that we may want to consider? > > If we change this, we will have to make some tam-tam around it; implementers should be notified. > > (Eg, two W3C Recs are coming up, namely prov and sparql, both have some vocabulary additions; those may be added right away, ie, as soon as PR is up) > > Ivan > > > On Mar 1, 2013, at 17:11 , Dan Brickley<danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > >> +cc Antoine >> >> Where are we with this? Do you still plan to add dc11 expansion into >> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 ? >> >> Dan >> >> On 20 November 2012 21:37, Ivan Herman<ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> I am fine with this change. >>> >>> WG: process question. If we accept this change, when should we do this? We are bound by a promise not to make changes often. I would therefore propose to make this change when html5+rdfa goes to CR. Tom, this would be sometimes January-February time range. Would that be fine? >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 20, 2012, at 16:28 , Gregg Kellogg wrote: >>> >>>> ΩOn Nov 20, 2012, at 4:24 PM, Thomas Baker<tom@tombaker.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear RDFa WG, >>>>> >>>>> Currently, the prefixes "dc:" and "dcterms:" are both mapped in the RDFa >>>>> Initial Context to the namespace URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/ (here: >>>>> "/terms/") [1]. >>>>> >>>>> It has been pointed out that a considerable amount of data uses, or maps to, >>>>> DCMI properties with the namespace URI http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ (here: >>>>> "/1.1/"), which in other contexts has traditionally been mapped to the prefix >>>>> "dc:". >>>>> >>>>> Most of the /terms/ properties have ranges restricted to either literal or >>>>> non-literal values, while the /1.1/ properties are rangeless (rdfs:Resource by >>>>> default) -- a characteristic some users see as an advantage (see [2]). >>>>> >>>>> DCMI would like to propose to the RDFa Working Group that the prefix "dc11:" be >>>>> added to the Initial Context for the /1.1/ namespace URI. >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Gregg >>>> >>>>> People who have used "dc:" for /1.1/ properties will need to explicitly declare >>>>> this as a prefix. However, for those who continue to use /1.1/ properties -- >>>>> in some cases, precisely because they are rangeless -- inclusion in the Initial >>>>> Context would emphasize that /1.1/ has not been forgotten or deprecated, >>>>> reinforce the message that /1.1/ properties should not be "upgraded" to /terms/ >>>>> properties in a mechanical way, and provide a conventional prefix to use for >>>>> the properties. >>>>> >>>>> Many thanks for your consideration, >>>>> Tom >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/rdfa-1.1 >>>>> [2] http://wiki.dublincore.org/index.php/FAQ/DC_and_DCTERMS_Namespaces >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tom Baker<tom@tombaker.org> >>>>> Dublin Core Metadata Initiative Ltd >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > ---- > 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 Friday, 1 March 2013 16:59:31 UTC