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:
  1. meeting record: 2007-06-21 RDFa Telecon (from swick@w3.org on 2007-06-21)
  2. [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-26)
  3. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from shane@aptest.com on 2007-06-26)
  4. RE: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-06-27)
  5. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
  6. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
  7. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
  8. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-28)
  9. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
  10. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
  11. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-28)
  12. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
  13. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-06-28)
  14. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
  15. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-06-28)
  16. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
  17. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3 @class and @role for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-06-28)
  18. [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from schreiber@cs.vu.nl on 2007-07-02)
  19. Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from Bernard.Horan@sun.com on 2007-07-02)
  20. Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from schreiber@cs.vu.nl on 2007-07-02)
  21. Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from ekendall@sandsoft.com on 2007-07-03)
  22. Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from simone.onofri@gmail.com on 2007-07-03)
  23. Re: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC (from juth@loc.gov on 2007-07-03)
  24. belated regrets (was RE: [ALL] agenda July 3 telecon 1500 UTC) (from A.J.Miles@rl.ac.uk on 2007-07-04)
  25. Minutes from July 3 tcon (from rubin@med.stanford.edu on 2007-07-05)
  26. [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-07-12)
  27. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-13)
  28. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ben@adida.net on 2007-07-16)
  29. RE: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at on 2007-07-17)
  30. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-07-17)
  31. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from baker@sub.uni-goettingen.de on 2007-07-17)
  32. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
  33. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
  34. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from diego.berrueta@fundacionctic.org on 2007-07-17)
  35. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from ivan@w3.org on 2007-07-17)
  36. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from lindstream@gmail.com on 2007-07-17)
  37. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from mark.birbeck@x-port.net on 2007-07-17)
  38. 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)
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. 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)
  42. 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)
  43. 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)
  44. 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)
  45. 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)
  46. 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)
  47. 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)
  48. 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)
  49. 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)
  50. Re: [RDFa] ISSUE-3: syntactic sugar for rdf:type (from simone.onofri@gmail.com on 2007-08-02)
  51. 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)
  52. 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