ISSUE-3
Role Attribute for RDF type declarations
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDFa
- Raised by:
- Ben Adida
- Opened on:
- 2007-01-30
- Description:
Tentative Resolution: class is rdf:type, while role is xhtml2:role. Related: Syntactic Sugar for class attribute Initial Motivation was to reduce the use of rdf:type in some examples. Discussions: July 2006: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jun/0009 August 2005: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Aug/0003 July 2005: http://www.w3.org/2005/07/26-swbp-minutes.html#item02 Points of Debate about role: + should we use role in some RDF way that is equivalent to rdf:type at all? + if we do, does that mean role is equivalent to rdf:type, or is a subproperty of rdf:type? + is role more of a declaration of "plays the role of" for purposes of client user interface? + maybe we need a new syntactic sugar for rdf:type? But that's possibly a slippery slope. Points of Debate about class: + should class be rdf:type? Another predicate? + Mark's post: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2006Jun/0009 + only for scoped classes-discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Feb/0063.html
- Related emails:
- meeting record: 2007-06-21 RDFa Telecon (from swick@w3.org on 2007-06-21)
- [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-26)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from shane@aptest.com on 2007-06-26)
- RE: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-06-27)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
- [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from schreiber@cs.vu.nl on 2007-07-02)
- Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from Bernard.Horan@sun.com on 2007-07-02)
- Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from schreiber@cs.vu.nl on 2007-07-02)
- Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from ekendall@sandsoft.com on 2007-07-03)
- Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from simone.onofri@gmail.com on 2007-07-03)
- Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from juth@loc.gov on 2007-07-03)
- belated regrets (was RE: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC) (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-07-04)
- Minutes from July 3 tcon (from rubin@med.stanford.edu on 2007-07-05)
- [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-07-12)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-13)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-07-16)
- RE: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from lindstream@gmail.com on 2007-07-17)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-07-17)
- Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from steven.pemberton@cwi.nl on 2007-07-19)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from ben@adida.net on 2007-07-19)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-20)
- RE: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-20)
- RE: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from k.j.w.alexander@gmail.com on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from lindstream@gmail.com on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from ben@adida.net on 2007-07-20)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from karl@w3.org on 2007-07-26)
- Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from simone.onofri@gmail.com on 2007-08-02)
- Re: Why I don't like 'instanceof' (was Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type) (from steven.pemberton@cwi.nl on 2007-09-05)
- ISSUE-3: Attribute for RDF type declarations (from ben@adida.net on 2007-10-03)
Related notes:
2007-02-05: - on 2007-01-29, we discussed feedback from the WG and TimBL regarding the overloading of CLASS being too confusing for existing uses of CLASS. Considering applying this only to scoped CLASSes.
2007-10-18: Noting Steven's dissent, this is resolved: "@role and @class are thus ignored by the core RDFa specification, while @instanceof is syntactic sugar for rdf:type, and takes a CURIE as value." http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2007Oct/0020.html