W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Comments on RDF/A draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:49:05 +0100
Message-ID: <41825861.4040606@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Ralph R. Swick" <swick@w3.org>
CC: Mark Birbeck <mark.birbeck@x-port.net>, Steven Pemberton <steven@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org

Just on one of ralph's comments ...

Ralph R. Swick wrote:

> Section 4.4 Establishing the object:  As noted in there
> is a third way to establish the object of a statement, namely
> element content.  I suggest noting that option in another subsection
> of 4.4 for completeness.  Then there is the question of whether it
> should be valid to have both a content attribute and element
> content.  It would complicate the XML Schema to disallow both on
> the same element but the simplest interpretation that occurs to
> me is that there are two RDF statements with the same subject and
> predicate for each of the (literal) objects.  Not sure if this
> is useful.

My reading was that if there wasn't a @content attribute then this is an 
XMLLiteral, possibly even the ""^^rdf:XMLLiteral empty one.

i.e. the two cases are distinguished by the presence or not of the 

Related I thought the example:

<meta about="http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/" property="dc:title">
     <link rel="dc:creator" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404" />

(note the @property was omitted as you noted)

As generating two triples, one with the rdf:XMLLiteral object as in the 
paper, and then also the

<http://internet-apps.blogspot.com/> dc:creator 
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/1109404> .

since nothing suggests that the <link> element gets used up by being in 
the XMLLiteral.

Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 14:49:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:18 UTC