W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > July 2007

Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type

From: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 17:04:47 -0700
Message-ID: <469C079F.8090201@adida.net>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, SWD WG <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Everyone else on the list: time to express an opinion on which attribute
name you'd like, ASAP :)


Ivan Herman wrote:
> instanceof is still the closest to the RDF meaning, isa refers back to
> the usage in turtle. Although I share Steven's uneasiness about the
> two-word thing, they still seem to be the best...
> Among the others listed only 'kind' seems to be appropriate. The others
> convey some sort of a meaning that rdf:type does not have...
> Ivan
> Ben Adida wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> In today's telecon, we proposed and resolved to use a *new* attribute,
>> rather than @class or @role, for the rdf:type syntactic sugar. Thus,
>> @class and @role do not currently result in any triples being generated,
>> although one may consider that they will in a future version.
>> The question, then, is which attribute to use. Steven expressed
>> reservations about two-word attributes like "isa" or "instanceof", and
>> instead proposed: denotes, depicts, represents, category, ilk, kind.
>> Other thoughts?
>> I'm partial to "instanceof" and "kind", and I have no additional
>> suggestions.
>> -Ben
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2007 00:04:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:44 UTC