Re: rev and the costs of inverses/aliases in SPARQL

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:00:09 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:37 +0100, Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 16:00:42 +0100, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>  
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away?
>> > Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share?
>>
>> Of course we would! Removing @rev from HTML5 is one of the worst  
>> examples
>> of cow-path design: apparently on the web, @rev is "hardly ever used"  
>> and
>> so therefore should be removed, whether or not anyone has a use case for
>> it.
>>
>> But in any case, authors do need it, they do use it, and @rev will  
>> always
>> be in RDFa, so the question is moot in a way.
>
> Could you give more details about who you mean when you say "we"?

We = RDFa authoring community.

> I can see your personal opinion, and I share it, but I'm trying to find
> out more detailed experience reports.

Well the advice "Use the rel attribute instead, with a term having the  
opposite meaning."
is clearly written by someone with no experience of vocabularies. An  
author will seldom have the choice about which vocabulary to use, and  
vocabularies seldom have duplicated relationships.

It is true that @rev is less needed than @rel. It is not true that @rev is  
not needed.

Best wishes,

Steven

Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 16:09:41 UTC