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

RE: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type)

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:15:53 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D29852012121C3@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Steven Pemberton" <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
Cc: "Ben Adida" <ben@adida.net>, "RDFa" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "SWD WG" <public-swd-wg@w3.org>

Again: Why do we refuse naming it 'type'?

Because it is to RDFish? (BTW, we're doing *R*D*F*a)
Or are there any (X)HTML (2) issues, I might have missed?


 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-swd-wg-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-swd-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:57 AM
>To: Steven Pemberton
>Cc: Ben Adida; RDFa; SWD WG
>Subject: Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] 
>ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type)
>If so... 'category' maybe the closest to what we mean...
>Steven Pemberton wrote:
>> I think there are only 3 reasons why I think 'instanceof' is 
>a bad choice:
>> 1. Multiword, which I already spoke of.
>> 2. instance has another meaning in some existing and future XHTML
>> documents.
>> 3. It comes over as rdf-speak. Up to now we have done our 
>best to avoid
>> exposing RDF terminology to the XHTML author; no subject, predicate,
>> object and so on, just existing HTML concepts where possible.
>> Unfortuantely, most of the synonyms have already been taken (class,
>> type, role), but I still think we should try and find something that
>> reads better than 'instanceof' or 'isa'.
>> /me runs a thesaurus
>> sort
>> kind
>> category
>> realm
>> depict
>> portray
>> represent
>> embody
>> like
>> Steven
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:25:48 +0200, Ben Adida <ben@adida.net> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> In today's telecon, we proposed and resolved to use a *new* 
>>> 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
>Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 20 July 2007 09:13:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:50 UTC