FYI... Maybe we _should_ be promoting the fifteen properties
of the /1.1/ namespace for use in RDFa? In RDFa, is a "fudge
between literals and resources" a "compromise that needs to
be made"?
Tom
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 03:34:32PM -0500, Thomas Baker wrote:
> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:34:32 -0500
> From: Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
> To: RDFa Working Group <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: dcterms:creator in RDFa Core 1.1, WD of October 26
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear all,
>
> Some of the examples in [1] generate triples such as:
>
> <> foaf:primaryTopic <#bbq> .
> <> dcterms:creator "Jo" .
>
> However, http://purl.org/dc/terms/creator has a range of
> dcterms:Agent. Using dc:creator would not be incorrect because
> http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/creator has no specified range
> (or rather, by default, rdfs:Resource). This is discussed
> in [2] and in an earlier posts to this list [3,4] in which
> I asked:
>
> Are there perhaps good reasons to prefer the more lightly
> specified /1.1/ namespace for use with RDFa? If so,
> should DCMI consider making the case more explicit and
> actively promote the use of /1.1/ with RDFa?
>
> I would like to ask the question again because it is clearly
> difficult to get the difference between the two URIs straight
> (even in specs :-) and because I see Jeni Tennison has argued,
> in slide 8 of her TPAC talk [5], that a "fudge between literals
> and resources" is one of the "compromises that need to be made"
> in RDFa.
>
> Tom
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20101026/
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-esw-thes/2009Jun/0017.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010May/0089.html
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010Jun/0024.html
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2010/11/TPAC/RDF-SW-velocity.pdf
>
> --
> Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
--
Tom Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|