[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-metadata] [Fwd: Re: ODF and semantic web]
Svante Schubert wrote: > Although we might even augment our set in later ODF specs, let's take a > closer look at adopting RDFa names. > Especially as there is a new draft of RDFa available [1]. > > One ODF unfamiliar design is the absence of attribute namespaces. I > assume the reason for this design, was the expected greater acceptance > from the HTML community. > Therefore my first question: would we use attributes without namespaces? Yes, I had this question as well. Apparently, we're fine with namespacing them, though I confess this doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to me they (the W3C RDFa group) should define a namespace URI for the attributes, and create namespaced alternatives. We could then use those. > Second aside of attribute names, there would be still some problem with > the attribute data types [2]. For instance @property uses only CURIEs, > where we use IRIs. My understanding is the attributes in RDFa using either CURIEs or full URIs. Obviously, that would be necessary for us to be able to say we're a true subset. Bruce
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]