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

To make it clear (because I saw the other votes): I will _not_ have
sleepless nights if the attribute is 'instanceof':-)

Ivan

Ivan Herman wrote:
> isa
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Ben Adida wrote:
>> Everyone else on the list: time to express an opinion on which attribute
>> name you'd like, ASAP :)
>>
>> -Ben
>>
>> 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
>>>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf