ISSUE-36: Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary?
Default vocab specification
Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary?
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- RDFa 1.1 Core
- Raised by:
- Manu Sporny
- Opened on:
- 2010-07-16
- Description:
- Markus proposed that Profile documents should allow the creation of a default vocabulary:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdfa-wg/2010May/0041.html
This has a number of implications:
1. How does one declare a default vocabulary via the profile document?
2. How does the declaration affect the @vocab attribute, would it override it and if so, in what order?
3. How does the declaration affect the CURIEs like ":next"?
The biggest question is the value of this feature? What is the use case that we are attempting to support? Does this overly-complicate RDFa without much payback? - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-36: default vocab specification (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-09-06)
- PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-36: default vocab specification (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-09-05)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Notice of RDFa Profiles allowing rdfa:vocabulary predicate (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-07-29)
- ISSUE-36: Notice of RDFa Profiles allowing rdfa:vocabulary predicate (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-07-29)
- Re: Telecon Agenda - July 29th 2010, 1400 UTC (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-07-29)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-07-26)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from shane@aptest.com on 2010-07-25)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-07-25)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from markus.gylling@gmail.com on 2010-07-23)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-07-23)
- Re: ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from tai@g5n.co.uk on 2010-07-22)
- ISSUE-36: Specifying a default vocabulary via an RDFa Profile (from shane@aptest.com on 2010-07-22)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from ivan@w3.org on 2010-07-17)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from shane@aptest.com on 2010-07-16)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from martin@weborganics.co.uk on 2010-07-16)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from shane@aptest.com on 2010-07-16)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from tai@g5n.co.uk on 2010-07-16)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from msporny@digitalbazaar.com on 2010-07-16)
- Re: ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from martin@weborganics.co.uk on 2010-07-16)
- ISSUE-36 (Default vocab specification): Should Profile documents allow the specification of a default vocabulary? [RDFa 1.1 Core] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2010-07-16)
Related notes:
Language has been added to the spec to cover this issue:
http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/#s_profiles
Proposal to close ISSUE-36 met no resistance, as the feature had been implemented in the RDFa Core specification.
Manu Sporny, 20 Sep 2010, 01:08:53Display change log