Fwd: Regarding @vocab and terms (ISSUE-129)

Shane,

it seems that we still have not got this right...

See below.

Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-rdfa-wg@w3.org
> From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Regarding @vocab and terms (ISSUE-129)
> Date: February 13, 2012 23:04:29 GMT+01:00
> To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Cc: public-rdfa-wg <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
> Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CADjV5jeG=5JkR5et7yM4bO2L7qw1itFLBgB34EnicL-fmamypw@mail.gmail.com>
> List-Id: <public-rdfa-wg.w3.org>
> 
> Hi Ivan,
> 

[snip]

> 
> 
>> 2. You claim that there is a difference between XHTML 1 and XHTML5/HTML5 in terms of terms.
>> 
>> I think there aren't, at least that was the intention... Section 3 of the XHTML+RDFa document refers to http://www.w3.org/2011/rdfa-context/xhtml-rdfa-1.1 as the definition of terms and prefixes. That file includes only the minimal set of the three: license, role, and describedby.
> 
> When I look up that page I see a lot of predefined terms? If indeed
> these are to be removed, at least a lot of potentially bad things have
> been prevented, which is good (such as 'chapter' being reset in a
> scenario using BIBO in a @vocab). If they are not, we should address
> this situation.
> 

Doh! Sh...t. I know that we have mixed up this URI so many time...

Shane, the reference in the XHTML+RDFa should be to rdfa-1.1 and not to xhtml-rdfa-1.1! xhtml-rdfa-1.1 was from the days when XHTML+RDFa borrowed the prefix definition from the core and indeed took over the term definition from the old system. As far as I know we decided _not_ to do that, and use only the very limited set of prefixes. Ie, the reference in the document is wrong:-(

Sigh... we should never touch that stuff again.

Thanks for Niklas for having spotted this...

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf