[whatwg] Microdata and Linked Data
pmika at yahoo-inc.com
Fri Jul 24 04:43:35 PDT 2009
Yes, #2 and #4 are quite related in that they both concern the
abbreviation mechanism for URIs and might be considered alternative
> On the other hand, on #4, you are opening the gate to independent
> entities (be them organizations or individuals) to define the prefixes
> they would be using for their pages' metadata: why don't apply this to
> #2 as well? IMO, it would be more important for #2 than for #4; since
> #4 only provides syntax sugar while #2 enables something that would be
> undoable without it (mapping Microdata to arbitrary RDF).
Yes, the idea of distributing the registration could be applied to #2.
> About #1, I'm not sure about what you are exacly proposing, so I can't
> provide much feedback on it. Maybe you could make it a bit clearer:
> are you proposing any specific change to the spec? If so, what would
> be the change? If now, what are you proposing then?
Removing the about property, showing how id can be used in this way, and
changing the description of how you transform an HTML5 document to RDF.
> Finally, about #3 I'm not familiar with the OWL vocabulary, so I can't
> say too much about it. But if your second proposal gets into the spec,
> then this would become just syntax sugar, since any property from any
> existing RDF vocabulary could be expressed; and if #4 also got in, the
> benefit of "built-in" properties would be minimal compared to using a
> reasonably short prefix (such as "owl:").
I agree... I'm personally not so attached to reverse domain names, but I
might have missed a lot of the previous discussions on why they are good
In any case, my intention was to get the discussion restarted around
these issues: it seems to me there was a lot of discussion at the very
beginning on microdata vs. RDFa when microdata was first proposed, but
then the discussion died without necessarily finding the best solution
(for my taste).
More information about the whatwg