(Resending for tracker: ISSUE-39) Re: Comment on RDFa 1.1 Core: Profiles, term mappings, and URIs as literals

(oops, resending for tracker: ISSUE-39. Sorry for the confusion.)

On Aug 6, 2010, at 07:40 , Ivan Herman wrote:

> Hi Richard,
> 
> (I am still on vacations, so I may not answer to your possible answer quickly, but I will become more active next week...)
> 
> This was discussed several times on the mailing list and I fully understand your issues. Here is the reason I was in favour of the current setup, but I am absolutely open to discussion because, well, it does complicate processing (speaking as an implementer).
> 
> The issue I have is that a statement like
> 
> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name" .
> 
> is a statement on a resource with a specific URI. And I see two issues with that, modeling wise:
> 
> - the goal of the @profile file is _not_ to make statements on resources but to make statements on strings, ie, the way RDFa processors should manipulate strings that are then converted into URI-s
> - while you may make the statement above in your @profile file, I may say in mine
> 
> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "blabla" .
> 
> These are both RDF statements in RDFa files somewhere so, eg, Sindice is perfectly licensed to collect both. Ie, Sindice will suddenly produce a proliferation of statements on the 
> 
> <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name>
> 
> resource which are definitely not intended and are meaningless for foaf...
> 
> These were my modeling fears that led me to the current proposal, in spite of being more awkward.
> 
> Try to convince me that I am wrong! Please:-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ivan
> 
> (As an aside, if we had literals as subjects that we could use those instead of the URI Resource, but that opens a whole lot of other issues:-)
> 
> On Aug 5, 2010, at 12:53 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> 
>> Hello RDFa WG members,
>> 
>> This is a comment on Profiles in the latest RDFa WD [1]. The draft provides a mechanism for establishing term mappings using RDF triples of the following general shape:
>> 
>>   ?x rdfa:term "name" .
>>   ?x rdfa:uri "http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name" .
>> 
>> I ask that the mechanism be changed to the following form:
>> 
>>   <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/name> rdfa:term "name" .
>> 
>> This change should be made for the following reasons:
>> 
>> 1. Conciseness. If one triple is enough to say it, there should be one triple.
>> 
>> 2. Putting URIs into RDF literals is almost always an anti-pattern.
>> 
>> 3. The principle of least surprise.
>> 
>> 4. Using a URI simplifies the creation of self-contained profiles that contain a set of term mappings along with labels for the classes and properties, mappings to other vocabularies, presentation hints etc.
>> 
>> 5. Using a URI simplifies the extension of existing RDF Schema documents (e.g., the RDF version of the FOAF spec) to RDFa profiles.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Richard
>> 
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-rdfa-core-20100803/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


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