Good question! And a wonderful development for drupal!
Let's take a worst case scenario: someone ignores the namespace
declaration and uses the /1.1/ namespace instead. Thus all properties
would be interpreted as the legacy ones.
All metadata would still be valid. In fact, doing exactly that is a
valid inference from the RDF Schemas, as all the /terms/ properties are
subproperties of the corresponding legacy property.
The only issue might be with properties that don't exist in the /1.1/
namespace - then the result would be usage of properties that simply
don't exist. I don't know if they are planning the use of such
properties.
Personally, I don't see an issue with using dc: for the whole /terms/
namespace, in a case like this where there is NO usage of /1.1/ at all.
If, within the project, dc: would sometimes be used for /1.1/ and
sometimes for /terms/, there would be a problem.
/Mikael
fre 2009-09-04 klockan 13:29 +0200 skrev Dan Brickley:
> Hi folks
>
> I'm at DrupalCon Paris, discussing some very current work on getting
> RDF into the core of Drupal 7.
>
> One open question is this business of the new and classic DC namespace URIs.
>
> Since Drupal content is quite nicely managed, expressing it in terms
> of the new "terms" namespace makes a lot of sense.
>
> However xmlns:dc as a prefix looks a lot nicer and more familiar than
> xmlns:dcterms.
>
> (most Drupal people aren't familiar with any DC or RDF/RDFa stuff, so
> there isn't much of cultural legacy issue here with using an "unusual"
> URI)
>
> While it might be confusing for some to see xmlns:dc bound to the
> newer terms namespace URI, I think on balance it might be the right
> thing to do.
>
> Thoughts, opinions, feedback? I know this has been discussed before
> (hey, everything in DC has :) ... but I would like to come up with a
> concrete recommendation from DC to the Drupal coders, so that we have
> a chance of getting sensible defaults into the Drupal 7 core...
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> ps. see http//drupal.org/project/usage/drupal to get a sense of the
> scale here - they're seeing nearly 200,000 registered installations...
>
|