- From: Stephane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:58:01 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: public-sparql-dev <public-sparql-dev@w3.org>, public-rdfa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1452bf811003080858r304d27j1a41769f1d676b59@mail.gmail.com>
> > Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share? > Drupal 7 uses @rev to associate a taxonomy term to the vocabulary it belongs to using rev="skos:member". I could not find an inverse property for skos:member so rev is very handy. Drupal stores the vid (vocabulary id) for each term, and the inverse relationship (vocabulary to term) does not exist explicitly, and that's what skos:member naturally maps to. Steph. On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > I just ran into this message again from an HTML 5 validator: > > "The rev attribute on the a element is obsolete. Use the rel attribute > instead, with a term having the opposite meaning." > > This seems to encourage the pattern of minting an inverse > for each property, a la: > > abridgement > abridgementOf > -- http://vocab.org/frbr/core.html > > Doesn't that just gum up the works when doing SPARQL queries? Which > do you query for, abridgement or abridgementOf? Or do you use > a UNION? > > It's one thing to discover, post-hoc, that two properties are > inverses of each other, and to write down that relationship. > But to make up these inverse-aliases by choice seems like > a big waste, to me. > (see also http://esw.w3.org/topic/HasPropertyOf bit on inverses and > aliases) > > How are SPARQL users dealing with this in practice? > > > Meanwhile, RDF/XML doesn't have syntax for inverting a relationship > (a la is/of in N3), and there's data that says rev="..." is > too confusing for HTML authors to use. > > "The short answer is unfortunately "NO". Use of "rev" SHOULD be > avoided." > -- http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-faq > "the only <link rev=""> link to appear is rev="made" (to point to the > author's page) — and the latter is not used that much more than the more > sensible rel="author". Also, ironically, just off the graph in position > 21 is rel="made", probably showing that the distinction between rel and > rev may be too subtle for many authors." > -- http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/linkrels.html > > > Would the RDFa authoring community miss a/@rev if it went away? > Does anyone have 1st-hand experience to share? > > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ > gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E > > > > >
Received on Monday, 8 March 2010 17:00:20 UTC